TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564151; 15128-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564146; 15128-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563902; 15128-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563869; 15128-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563864; 15128-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16390148; 15128 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%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, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-12 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bat killer identified in white-nose case AN - 901869012 AB - "While our study confirmed that G. destructans is spread bat-to-bat, it is also important to note that virtually all pathogens, especially spore-producing fungi, are spread by multiple routes," said David Blehert, USGS microbiologist and an author of the study. "This is the reason that in an effort to further control the spread of WNS, resource management agencies have implemented universal precautions, including limiting human access to sensitive environments occupied by bats, decontaminating... JF - Western Farm Press AU - USGS AD - USGS Y1 - 2011/11/03/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Nov 03 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/901869012?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%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Bat+killer+identified+in+white-nose+case&rft.au=USGS&rft.aulast=USGS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Nov 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-15 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bay-Delta future hangs on climate, water and population AN - 901868933 AB - "The protection of California's Bay-Delta system will continue to be a top priority for maintaining the state's agricultural economy, water security to tens of millions of users, and essential habitat to a valuable ecosystem," said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. "This new USGS research complements ongoing initiatives to conserve the Bay-Delta by providing sound scientific understanding for managing this valuable system such that it continues to provide the services we need in the face... JF - Western Farm Press AU - USGS AD - USGS Y1 - 2011/11/03/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Nov 03 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/901868933?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%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Bay-Delta+future+hangs+on+climate%2C+water+and+population&rft.au=USGS&rft.aulast=USGS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Nov 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 55 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689559; 15116-9_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 54 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689544; 15116-9_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 50 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689528; 15116-9_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 49 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689513; 15116-9_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 48 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689499; 15116-9_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 42 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689481; 15116-9_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 41 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689467; 15116-9_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 40 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689452; 15116-9_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 39 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916689430; 15116-9_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916689430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916689414; 15114-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916689414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 31 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688163; 15116-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 30 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688150; 15116-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 25 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688136; 15116-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688123; 15116-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 23 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688110; 15116-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688093; 15116-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688078; 15116-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688066; 15116-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 69 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688050; 15116-9_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688049; 15116-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688040; 15122-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916688040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688031; 15122-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916688031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 68 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916688030; 15116-9_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916688030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688024; 15122-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916688024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688018; 15122-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916688018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916688000; 15122-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916688000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 61 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687997; 15116-9_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 60 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687962; 15116-9_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). AN - 916687952; 15118-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy right-of-way (ROW) applications on a project-specific basis. As of August 15, 2011, the BLM had approved 10 utility-scale solar projects on public land and the associated linear ROWs to enable the development of two projects on private land. Also as of August 15, 2011, there were 79 pending solar applications: 31 in Arizona, 20 in California, 25 in Nevada, and three in New Mexico. A draft programmatic EIS issued in December, 2010 considered a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. The preferred solar energy development program alternative identified solar energy zones (SEZs) where development would be prioritized, while the SEZ program alternative would exclude development outside the zones. This draft supplement focuses on modified and new components of the proposed programs. The modified solar energy development program alternative emphasizes development within SEZs and proposes a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. Utility-scale solar development would be allowed in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with the proposed variance process. The modified program alternative also establishes authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Some of the SEZs analyzed in the draft programmatic EIS were found to have substantial resource conflicts and have been dropped: Bullard Wash in Arizona, Iron Mountain and Pisgah in California, Delamar Valley and East Mormon Mountain in Nevada, and Mason Draw and Red Sands in New Mexico. In addition, the areas of the following SEZs have been substantially reduced: Riverside East in California; De Tilla Gulch, Fourmile East, and Los Mogotes East in Colorado; Amargosa Valley, Dry Lake, and Dry Lake Valley North in Nevada; and Afton in New Mexico. These changes reduce the total acreage potentially available for development in proposed SEZs from 677,000 acres to 285,000 acres. Approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would remain available for ROW application under the modified preferred alternative. This draft supplement also considers a No Action Alternative which would perpetuate the DOE's case-by-case review process for solar projects and one action alternative which specifies programmatic guidance for the analysis and selection of solar projects that DOE will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies (parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems) and photovoltaic technologies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. The proposed SEZs would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), 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 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110361, 582 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding 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/916687952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+2010%29.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687950; 15116-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687941; 15116-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687932; 15116-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 29 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687922; 15116-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687918; 15116-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687914; 15122-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 28 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687911; 15116-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687910; 15122-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 75 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687909; 15116-9_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687905; 15122-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 27 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687902; 15116-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 74 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687900; 15116-9_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687899; 15122-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687896; 15122-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 26 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687890; 15116-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687888; 15122-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 73 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687887; 15116-9_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687879; 15114-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687875; 15116-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 72 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687874; 15116-9_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687870; 15114-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687863; 15114-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 67 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687859; 15116-9_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687855; 15114-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687848; 15116-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687847; 15114-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 66 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687843; 15116-9_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687837; 15114-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 65 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687829; 15116-9_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 59 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687817; 15116-9_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 17 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687810; 15116-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 71 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687803; 15116-9_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 16 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687799; 15116-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687789; 15116-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 70 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687787; 15116-9_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687777; 15116-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 64 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687773; 15116-9_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687769; 15114-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687762; 15114-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687756; 15114-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687749; 15114-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 63 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687748; 15116-9_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687742; 15114-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 62 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687733; 15116-9_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687732; 15114-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687721; 15114-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687717; 15116-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687711; 15114-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687700; 15114-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687697; 15116-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687679; 15116-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687673; 15122-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687663; 15122-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687657; 15116-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687653; 15114-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687648; 15122-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687644; 15114-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687641; 15122-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687639; 15116-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687635; 15114-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687633; 15114-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687629; 15114-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687626; 15116-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687625; 15114-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687620; 15114-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687615; 15114-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687611; 15114-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687604; 15114-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 916687586; 15122-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687583; 15114-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687577; 15114-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687572; 15114-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687568; 15114-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 53 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687511; 15116-9_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 52 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687502; 15116-9_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 51 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687491; 15116-9_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AERIAL APPLICATION OF FIRE RETARDANT, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AERIAL APPLICATION OF FIRE RETARDANT, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS. AN - 916687450; 15123-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use nationwide of aerially-delivered fire retardant on National Forest System (NFS) lands is proposed. On July 27, 2010, the District Court for the District of Montana invalidated the Forest Services 2008 decision to continue using the 2000 Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways and to adopt the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. Significant issues include those related to water quality, human health and safety, impacts on threatened and endangered species, and impacts on cultural resources. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the Forest Service would discontinue the aerial application of fire retardant for fires occurring on NFS lands. Ground-based application of long-term fire retardant and water, and also aerial application of water only, would continue to be available as fire suppression tools. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), the Forest Service would continue aerial application of retardant, permanently adopt the 2000 Guidelines, and also adopt the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) as identified by the FWS and NOAA in 2008. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, the Forest Service would adopt the 2011 Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways. The new guidelines include the 2008 RPAs and would provide protocols for mapping avoidance areas at the forest level and direction for consultation and monitoring should a misapplication occur. Incident commanders and pilots would be required to avoid aerial application of retardant on mapped avoidance areas for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or locally identified sensitive species or within 300 feet either side of waterways. Cultural resources, including historic properties, traditional cultural resources, and sacred sites would be given case-by-case consideration when ordering aerial applications of fire retardant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Standard guidelines would provide for the use of aerially-applied fire retardant when and where incident commanders determine fire retardant is an appropriate fire fighting tool, while providing for public and fire fighter safety and natural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The misapplication of fire retardant to waterways would likely adversely affect threatened and endangered wildlife species and impact individuals and habitat. The fertilizing effects of retardant on forest soils could increase vegetative growth and change vegetative community structure and composition. Sensitive plant species would be impacted, but not to an extent that would trend toward federal listing. Increases in non-native invasive plant species could occur. Cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and historic properties may be affected. Human health effects, primarily skin irritations, are likely to be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110366, 562 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Chemicals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sandpoint, Idaho; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 58 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687265; 15116-9_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 57 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687260; 15116-9_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 47 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687255; 15116-9_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 46 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687244; 15116-9_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 45 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687234; 15116-9_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 44 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687228; 15116-9_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 43 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687222; 15116-9_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687214; 15114-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687208; 15114-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687201; 15114-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687197; 15114-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 916687193; 15114-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916687193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+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, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 32 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916687153; 15116-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916687153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 36 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916686921; 15116-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916686921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 35 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916686905; 15116-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916686905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 34 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916686888; 15116-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916686888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 38 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916686761; 15116-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916686761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 37 of 75] T2 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 916686743; 15116-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/916686743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER, 2010). AN - 913430203; 15118 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy right-of-way (ROW) applications on a project-specific basis. As of August 15, 2011, the BLM had approved 10 utility-scale solar projects on public land and the associated linear ROWs to enable the development of two projects on private land. Also as of August 15, 2011, there were 79 pending solar applications: 31 in Arizona, 20 in California, 25 in Nevada, and three in New Mexico. A draft programmatic EIS issued in December, 2010 considered a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. The preferred solar energy development program alternative identified solar energy zones (SEZs) where development would be prioritized, while the SEZ program alternative would exclude development outside the zones. This draft supplement focuses on modified and new components of the proposed programs. The modified solar energy development program alternative emphasizes development within SEZs and proposes a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. Utility-scale solar development would be allowed in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with the proposed variance process. The modified program alternative also establishes authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Some of the SEZs analyzed in the draft programmatic EIS were found to have substantial resource conflicts and have been dropped: Bullard Wash in Arizona, Iron Mountain and Pisgah in California, Delamar Valley and East Mormon Mountain in Nevada, and Mason Draw and Red Sands in New Mexico. In addition, the areas of the following SEZs have been substantially reduced: Riverside East in California; De Tilla Gulch, Fourmile East, and Los Mogotes East in Colorado; Amargosa Valley, Dry Lake, and Dry Lake Valley North in Nevada; and Afton in New Mexico. These changes reduce the total acreage potentially available for development in proposed SEZs from 677,000 acres to 285,000 acres. Approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would remain available for ROW application under the modified preferred alternative. This draft supplement also considers a No Action Alternative which would perpetuate the DOE's case-by-case review process for solar projects and one action alternative which specifies programmatic guidance for the analysis and selection of solar projects that DOE will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies (parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems) and photovoltaic technologies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. The proposed SEZs would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), 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 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110361, 582 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding 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/913430203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHERN ARIZONA PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 913430201; 15116 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of approximately one million acres of federal mineral estate in northern Arizona from the location of new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 is proposed. The uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the worlds known uranium deposits and the lands within the proposed withdrawal area are considered to have a high potential for uranium. The planning area includes 626,678 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 355,874 acres of lands managed by the Kaibab National Forest, 4,204 acres administered by the Arizona State Land Department, and 19,789 acres of private land. The proposed withdrawal is the result of concerns over potential impacts of uranium mining on the Grand Canyon watershed adjacent to and including Grand Canyon National Park. As of July 2009, these lands were segregated for up to two years from location and entry of new mining claims. On June 27, 2011, the Secretary of Interior published an emergency withdrawal which will expire on January 20, 2012, to allow the lands to remain closed to location and entry during the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, there would be no withdrawal and location and recordation of mining claims would continue. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is the proposed action to withdraw 1,006,545 acres from location and entry for 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. Alternative C would involve a smaller withdrawal of 650,333 acres and Alternative D would involve a further reduced withdrawal of 295,991 acres. Both the current segregation and the proposed withdrawal apply only to public domain federal mineral estate, including federal mineral estate underlying non-federal surface lands. Neither the current segregation order nor the proposed withdrawal apply to non-federal mineral estate or to leasable or salable minerals such as oil and gas leasing, and sand and gravel permits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of the parcels from new mining claims would protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from the possible adverse effects of the reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral exploration and development that could occur in the segregated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine operations would impact air quality, soil resources, vegetation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Numerous cultural sites could be affected and mining-related roads would adversely impact users seeking primitive recreation opportunities in adjacent areas. Alternatives B, C, and D are projected to reduce annual government revenues by $16.6 million, $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B, C and D are projected to decrease uranium mining-related employment by 465 jobs, 294 jobs and 104 jobs, respectively. The reduction in uranium production under Alternative B would be equivalent to about six percent of current U.S. demand. Uranium production would be reduced by about four percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative C and about two percent of current U.S. demand under Alternative D. 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.). JF - EPA number: 110359, Final EIS--1,092 pages, Appendices--available electronically, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Emissions KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - National Parks KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Soil Pollution KW - Soils KW - Watersheds KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Kaibab National Forest 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/913430201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+ARIZONA+PROPOSED+WITHDRAWAL+OF+FEDERAL+MINERAL+ESTATE%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+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, St. George, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 913430199; 15114 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted proposed amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would mine 158 million tons of copper ore for processing resulting in 245 million pounds of recoverable copper during the ore processing timeframe. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would consist of the following primary components: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply water for the copper heap leach process. The total estimated groundwater that would be used for the proposed project would be 23,000 acre-feet. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed Phoenix Copper Leach Project would not be constructed and the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres of proposed disturbance within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years. Overall closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend 13 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While the majority of facilities would be located in areas that have previously been approved for surface disturbance, new disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. New project-related surface disturbance would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat, although the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 110357, 389 pages and maps, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/BM/ES/11-26+1793 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/913430199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AERIAL APPLICATION OF FIRE RETARDANT, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS. AN - 913430198; 15123 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use nationwide of aerially-delivered fire retardant on National Forest System (NFS) lands is proposed. On July 27, 2010, the District Court for the District of Montana invalidated the Forest Services 2008 decision to continue using the 2000 Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways and to adopt the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. Significant issues include those related to water quality, human health and safety, impacts on threatened and endangered species, and impacts on cultural resources. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the Forest Service would discontinue the aerial application of fire retardant for fires occurring on NFS lands. Ground-based application of long-term fire retardant and water, and also aerial application of water only, would continue to be available as fire suppression tools. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), the Forest Service would continue aerial application of retardant, permanently adopt the 2000 Guidelines, and also adopt the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) as identified by the FWS and NOAA in 2008. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, the Forest Service would adopt the 2011 Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways. The new guidelines include the 2008 RPAs and would provide protocols for mapping avoidance areas at the forest level and direction for consultation and monitoring should a misapplication occur. Incident commanders and pilots would be required to avoid aerial application of retardant on mapped avoidance areas for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or locally identified sensitive species or within 300 feet either side of waterways. Cultural resources, including historic properties, traditional cultural resources, and sacred sites would be given case-by-case consideration when ordering aerial applications of fire retardant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Standard guidelines would provide for the use of aerially-applied fire retardant when and where incident commanders determine fire retardant is an appropriate fire fighting tool, while providing for public and fire fighter safety and natural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The misapplication of fire retardant to waterways would likely adversely affect threatened and endangered wildlife species and impact individuals and habitat. The fertilizing effects of retardant on forest soils could increase vegetative growth and change vegetative community structure and composition. Sensitive plant species would be impacted, but not to an extent that would trend toward federal listing. Increases in non-native invasive plant species could occur. Cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and historic properties may be affected. Human health effects, primarily skin irritations, are likely to be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110366, 562 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Chemicals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/913430198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AERIAL+APPLICATION+OF+FIRE+RETARDANT%2C+NATIONAL+FOREST+SYSTEM+LANDS.&rft.title=AERIAL+APPLICATION+OF+FIRE+RETARDANT%2C+NATIONAL+FOREST+SYSTEM+LANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sandpoint, Idaho; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 16377130; 15122 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a five-lane arterial roadway, known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), between Provo Airport and the vicinity of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interchange with University Avenue and 1860 South Street in Provo, Utah is proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo and includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. In addition to the PWC, the proposed improvements would include the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. The 1860 South Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative based on public comment preferences, agency comment preferences, reduced land use impacts, superior transportation performance, lack of visual impacts, lack of noise impacts, fewer commercial property impacts, and practicable avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $57.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new roadway would support planned development in southwest Provo, planned improvements at the Provo Airport, and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 9.3 acres of wetlands, 1,594 linear feet of streams, 93 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, and 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0474D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110365, Final EIS--380 pages, Appendices and Maps--296 pages, October 28, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-F KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 28, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 51 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912110816; 15113-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 47 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106300; 15113-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 46 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106288; 15113-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 45 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106277; 15113-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 44 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106266; 15113-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 34 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106251; 15113-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 33 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106236; 15113-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 32 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106227; 15113-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 31 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106214; 15113-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 26 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106203; 15113-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 25 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106188; 15113-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106175; 15113-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 23 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106163; 15113-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106146; 15113-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106137; 15113-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912106127; 15113-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912106127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 54 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105569; 15113-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 53 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105551; 15113-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 43 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105543; 15113-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 52 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105530; 15113-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 42 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105521; 15113-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 38 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105515; 15113-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 41 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105496; 15113-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 37 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105486; 15113-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 40 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105466; 15113-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 36 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105456; 15113-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 39 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105438; 15113-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 35 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105431; 15113-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105407; 15113-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105396; 15113-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105375; 15113-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 17 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105365; 15113-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105351; 15113-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 16 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105339; 15113-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105323; 15113-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105315; 15113-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105302; 15107-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105284; 15107-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105264; 15107-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105234; 15107-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912105215; 15107-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105184; 15108-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 27 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105148; 15108-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 26 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105125; 15108-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 25 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105083; 15108-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912105053; 15108-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 50 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103924; 15113-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 49 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103904; 15113-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 48 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103889; 15113-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 30 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103715; 15113-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 29 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103710; 15113-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 28 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103705; 15113-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 27 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103700; 15113-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103696; 15107-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103694; 15107-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103691; 15107-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912103682; 15107-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 23 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102588; 15108-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 22 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102561; 15108-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102545; 15108-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102529; 15108-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102516; 15108-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102506; 15108-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102491; 15108-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102474; 15108-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102458; 15108-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102437; 15108-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912102092; 15113-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912102081; 15113-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS, BEAVER, GARFIELD, IRON, JUAB, MILLARD, PIUTE, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS, BEAVER, GARFIELD, IRON, JUAB, MILLARD, PIUTE, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 912102070; 15110-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Leasing alternatives for potential oil and gas exploration and development on 1.7 million acres within the Fishlake National Forest (FNF) in Utah are proposed. The FNF covers parts of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne counties in central Utah. Rural communities, farms, ranches, and residences which could be affected are generally located in the valleys between the individual mountainous units of the Forest. The FNF consists mainly of north-south trending mountains and plateaus bounded by adjacent valleys and basins. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wildlife resources, unroaded and undeveloped areas, visual and scenic integrity, geologic hazards and steep slopes, water quality, fisheries, vegetation, air quality, and economics. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, all lands legally open to oil and gas leasing would be determined to be administratively available for leasing with standard lease terms and conditions, with the exception of Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers, which would be under a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation, and Class I airshed areas which would be under a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation. Alternative C is the proposed action and would make all lands administered by the FNF available for lease. The following areas would be leased with the NSO stipulation: all research natural areas; Quitchupah Canyon cultural area; areas with slopes greater than 35 percent; North Horn sediment areas greater than 25 percent slope; habitat within one mile of known threatened, endangered, or proposed (TEP) plants; habitat of TEP species covered under a conservation agreement or recovery plan; areas within 300 feet of riparian areas, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, perennial streams, and springs; municipal water source protection areas; bald eagle winter concentration areas; sage grouse leks and nesting habitat; known colonies of pygmy rabbits; key habitats for boreal toad; developed recreation sites; Forest Service administrative sites and facilities; areas with high scenic integrity; national recreation trails; and inventoried roadless areas. The following areas would be leased with a timing limitation stipulation: sage grouse brood-rearing areas; sage grouse winter habitat; goshawk nesting and nest replacement areas; big game wintering areas; and big game calving and fawning areas. The following areas would be leased with the CSU stipulation: goshawk post-fledging areas; raptor nest areas; sage grouse breeding areas; and Class I airsheds. All other areas would be leased with standard lease terms and conditions. Alternative D would emphasize the protection of non-mineral resources and uses over oil and gas exploration and development activities and the associated economic benefits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploration and development would increase employment and income in the community, increase revenue to local governments, and possibly increase domestic oil and gas supply. Lease stipulations would protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration, exploratory drilling, and development and production would cause temporary noise disturbances and some surface disturbance. Impacts to fish and wildlife would include mortality, injury, and habitat modification, fragmentation, and loss. Impacts to trout species are likely to occur from increased sedimentation inputs into the water, toxic inputs to the streams or reservoirs, adverse impacts to habitat and aquatic environment, spread of aquatic nuisance species, and from dewatering. Impacts to three of the sensitive plant species that occur on the FNF are likely. All action alternatives would have at least some potential for adverse effect on water quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110353, 316 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FISHLAKE+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ANALYSIS%2C+BEAVER%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+PIUTE%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WAYNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=FISHLAKE+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ANALYSIS%2C+BEAVER%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+PIUTE%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WAYNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Richfield, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102041; 15108-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102030; 15108-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 32 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102018; 15108-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102011; 15108-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912102001; 15108-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101866; 15113-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101853; 15113-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101838; 15113-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101832; 15107-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101813; 15107-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101563; 15113-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101550; 15113-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101476; 15107-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101467; 15107-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 36 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912101438; 15108-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 35 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912101411; 15108-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101375; 15113-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101357; 15113-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101346; 15113-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 54] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 912101316; 15113-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100955; 15108-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100945; 15108-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100935; 15108-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100768; 15108-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100748; 15108-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100728; 15108-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100716; 15108-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100688; 15108-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100604; 15108-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912100579; 15108-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912099902; 15108-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 36] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 912099883; 15108-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912099883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 911145351; 15113 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a large-scale solar energy project on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The proposed project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). A concentrated solar thermal (CST) power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts (MW) of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for 30 years and would connect to the existing Jojoba Substation via three to four miles of new 500-kilovolt tie-line. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the CST power facility would occupy 3,620 acres and require as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy). Under Alternative A, the SSEP would use dry-cooling technology and require approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Sub-alternative A1 is the preferred alternative and would involve the use of photovoltaic technology instead of solar thermal technology to reduce water use. A 300-MW photovoltaic facility would occupy 2,013 acres and use only 2 to 5 percent of the water required for the CST plant. Alternative B would involve construction of a wet-cooled facility on a reduced project footprint of 2,320 acres with a total output of 250 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The SSEP would change stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Wildlife could be exposed to toxic constituents in evaporation ponds and habitat would be displaced, fragmented, and degraded. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and the primitive recreational experience in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Vegetation removal and fencing would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Three sites in the area of potential effects are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0034D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110356, Volume 1--637 pages, Volume 2--294 pages and maps, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911145351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 911145069; 15108 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The proposed 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC on a 10,500-acre privately-owned tract, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain projects are constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), which is the preferred alternative, the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 46 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy and reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure. Cost-effective transmission would facilitate electric power sales and transfers. Under the preferred alternative, the transmission line would follow a north-south route that would completely avoid the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 57 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0264D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110351, 1,253 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911145069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 911145065; 15107 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit mine to extract locatable minerals such as copper, molybdenum, and silver on the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Rosemont Copper Project site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered land, and 75 acres of State land. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, would be approximately 25 years. Associated infrastructure would consist of haul and access roads, ore transportation systems, ore processing facilities, waste rock and tailings areas, leach facilities, electrical and water transmission lines, and ancillary facilities integral to the operations, such as the administration building, employee change house, warehouse, analytical laboratory, vehicle servicing facilities, storage facilities, guard house, and truck scale. The roughly circular open-pit mine would measure, at end of mine life, between 6,000 and 6,500 feet in diameter, with a final depth of 1,800 to 2,900 feet, depending on the elevation of the pit rim. The mine would produce a total of 550 million tons of ore and 1.3 billion tons of waste rock. Highway access would be from State Route 83, which connects to Interstate 10 approximately 12 miles north of the mine site. A new two-lane gravel road would be constructed to provide access between State Route 83 and the mine. The project would be located primarily within the Barrel Canyon drainage and its tributaries. Diversion channels would be constructed to intercept runoff from precipitation and route it around the mine facilities for discharge to lower Barrel Canyon, downstream of the project. The project would use 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total over the mine life of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley and would be piped to the mine. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Barrel Alternative (Alternative 4), all tailings and waste rock would be placed in Upper Barrel and Wasp Canyons. Two water line alignments and five alternative routes for an aboveground 138-kilovolt transmission line and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow development of the Rosemont ore deposit in a manner that complies with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Production estimates include 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver annually over 20 years. The preferred alternative would avoid placement of mine waste in McCleary Canyon, thus preserving resource values, including recreation, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the loss of 39.9 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States, the conversion of 7,014 to 7,095 acres of habitat, and potential impacts on up to 145,190 acres. Wildlife species impacted would include nine species federally listed as threatened or endangered. All of the action alternatives may result in a loss of population viability for two special status plant species. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites would be impacted. Modeling indicates that remnant heap leach seepage would exceed aquifer water quality standards for cadmium, nickel, and selenium. However, the heap leach facility would be located on top of a stable rock location and designed to collect all possible drainage and solution. Potential grazing activities would be reduced by 1,075 animal unit months. Blasting and equipment operational noise would result in a likely decrease in recreational value in the area. Long-term adverse impacts on astronomy would affect research at Whipple Observatory and Jarnac Observatory. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Organic Administration Act of 1897. JF - EPA number: 110350, Volume 1--392 pages, Volume 2--486 pages, Appendices--167 pages, October 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Coronado National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Organic Administration Act of 1897, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911145065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=ROSEMONT+COPPER+PROJECT%2C+CORONADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912111125; 15104-7_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912111125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912111123; 15104-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912111123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110916; 15105-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course in El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river have contributed to declining water clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2010. This final EIS identifies a preferred alternative which is a slightly modified version of Alternative 2. The preferred alternative would involve river ecosystem restoration with a reconfigured 18-hole regulation golf course. The current 11,840-foot-long reach of the Upper Truckee River would be restored to 13,430 feet with additional floodplain area. Eight or nine golf course holes would be relocated to an area on the west side of the river that contains less sensitive land that is further from the river. All five existing bridges would be removed from the Upper Truckee River, and one new, longer bridge would be constructed. Four bridges would also be removed from Angora Creek. New trails would be constructed on both sides of the river with connectivity to the Sawmill bike path. The boundaries between WMSP and LVSRA would be modified so that the SRA would encompass the reconfigured golf course and the restored river would generally become part of WMSP. The southern portion of the South Tahoe Public Utility District access road would also become part of the SRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment to Lake Tahoe while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0575D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110348, Volume IV--640 pages, Vol. V--547 pages, Appendix K--8 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110915; 15105-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course in El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river have contributed to declining water clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2010. This final EIS identifies a preferred alternative which is a slightly modified version of Alternative 2. The preferred alternative would involve river ecosystem restoration with a reconfigured 18-hole regulation golf course. The current 11,840-foot-long reach of the Upper Truckee River would be restored to 13,430 feet with additional floodplain area. Eight or nine golf course holes would be relocated to an area on the west side of the river that contains less sensitive land that is further from the river. All five existing bridges would be removed from the Upper Truckee River, and one new, longer bridge would be constructed. Four bridges would also be removed from Angora Creek. New trails would be constructed on both sides of the river with connectivity to the Sawmill bike path. The boundaries between WMSP and LVSRA would be modified so that the SRA would encompass the reconfigured golf course and the restored river would generally become part of WMSP. The southern portion of the South Tahoe Public Utility District access road would also become part of the SRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment to Lake Tahoe while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0575D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110348, Volume IV--640 pages, Vol. V--547 pages, Appendix K--8 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110835; 15104-7_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110830; 15104-7_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110823; 15104-7_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912110819; 15104-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912110819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109876; 15104-7_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109863; 15104-7_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109847; 15104-7_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109722; 15104-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912109703; 15104-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912109703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912108878; 15104-7_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912108878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105808; 15104-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105795; 15104-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105786; 15104-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105773; 15104-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105734; 15104-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105720; 15104-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105688; 15104-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912105626; 15104-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912105626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103718; 15105-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course in El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river have contributed to declining water clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2010. This final EIS identifies a preferred alternative which is a slightly modified version of Alternative 2. The preferred alternative would involve river ecosystem restoration with a reconfigured 18-hole regulation golf course. The current 11,840-foot-long reach of the Upper Truckee River would be restored to 13,430 feet with additional floodplain area. Eight or nine golf course holes would be relocated to an area on the west side of the river that contains less sensitive land that is further from the river. All five existing bridges would be removed from the Upper Truckee River, and one new, longer bridge would be constructed. Four bridges would also be removed from Angora Creek. New trails would be constructed on both sides of the river with connectivity to the Sawmill bike path. The boundaries between WMSP and LVSRA would be modified so that the SRA would encompass the reconfigured golf course and the restored river would generally become part of WMSP. The southern portion of the South Tahoe Public Utility District access road would also become part of the SRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment to Lake Tahoe while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0575D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110348, Volume IV--640 pages, Vol. V--547 pages, Appendix K--8 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103091; 15104-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912103041; 15104-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912103041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102991; 15104-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102944; 15104-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102917; 15104-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102882; 15104-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102842; 15104-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102792; 15104-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102756; 15104-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102718; 15104-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102684; 15104-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102650; 15104-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102605; 15104-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102232; 15104-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102214; 15104-7_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102183; 15104-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102166; 15104-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102143; 15104-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912102131; 15104-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912102131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912101485; 15104-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912101485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100982; 15104-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100967; 15104-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100959; 15104-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100932; 15104-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100914; 15104-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100861; 15104-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100840; 15104-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100814; 15104-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100783; 15104-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100624; 15104-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100380; 15104-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100345; 15104-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 64] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 912100303; 15104-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912100303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910687254; 15105 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course in El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river have contributed to declining water clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2010. This final EIS identifies a preferred alternative which is a slightly modified version of Alternative 2. The preferred alternative would involve river ecosystem restoration with a reconfigured 18-hole regulation golf course. The current 11,840-foot-long reach of the Upper Truckee River would be restored to 13,430 feet with additional floodplain area. Eight or nine golf course holes would be relocated to an area on the west side of the river that contains less sensitive land that is further from the river. All five existing bridges would be removed from the Upper Truckee River, and one new, longer bridge would be constructed. Four bridges would also be removed from Angora Creek. New trails would be constructed on both sides of the river with connectivity to the Sawmill bike path. The boundaries between WMSP and LVSRA would be modified so that the SRA would encompass the reconfigured golf course and the restored river would generally become part of WMSP. The southern portion of the South Tahoe Public Utility District access road would also become part of the SRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment to Lake Tahoe while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0575D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110348, Volume IV--640 pages, Vol. V--547 pages, Appendix K--8 pages, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910687254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+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 - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910686414; 15104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile, 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The Tule Wind project would locate up to 128 wind turbines in the McCain Valley and generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.2-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation for transmission of renewable energy and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. In addition to the proposed actions and No Project/No Action alternatives, this final EIS considers one alternative ECO Substation site which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five Tule Wind Project alternatives; and three ESJ Gen-Tie Project alternatives. For the ECO Substation, the alternative site combined with the partial underground 138-kV transmission route is preferred. For the Tule Wind Project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. The number of turbines would be reduced to 65, the length of the proposed 138-kV transmission line would be reduced from 9.2 miles to 3.8 miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating planned renewable energy generation, the project would provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system and would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would provide the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit that power to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase wildfire risk and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 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 10-0312D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110347, Volume 1--1,388 pages and maps, Volume 2--1,382 pages and maps, Volume 3--Responses to Comments, Volume 4--Comments, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910686414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 910376488; 15092-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina for the next 20 or more years are proposed. The parkway is 469 miles long, traverses the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, and connects Shenandoah National Park to the north with Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the south. Created as a national rural roadway with limited access, the parkway was designed for recreational driving free from commercial traffic. Today, the parkway encompasses 82,000 acres of federal land and shares over 1,000 miles of boundary with some 4,000 adjacent landowners, eight associated federally recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, and several towns and cities. The parkway offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 public secondary at-grade access points from regional road systems. Many of these roads have recently been or are in the process of being improved by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more residential development, traffic, and loss of scenery adjacent to the parkway. The National Park Service has operated the parkway since establishment using a master plan and land use maps for guidance. However, the master plan is outdated, and an increasing array of issues requires guidance through an approved General Management Plan (GMP). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would actively manage the parkway as a traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape. To support that experience, many of the recreation areas would provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities and development would be applied to parkway lands. This alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. Under Alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the larger regions resources and economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and experiences. A variety of more modern recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, including a paved multiuse trail which would be developed parallel to the parkway along portions of the Highlands segment in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A GMP would define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved and provide a framework for making decisions about parkway resources, visitor experience opportunities, visitor use, and development of facilities. The natural and special natural resource zones proposed under Alternative B would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The designation of 10,139 acres (12.3 percent) of parkway lands as recreation zone under Alternative B would create adverse impacts such as vegetation loss, wildlife habitat alternations, and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Increased disturbances to wildlife would also result from more visitors to the less accessible areas of the parkway. Upgrades to provide showers and recreational vehicle water and electrical hookups at the parkway's nine campgrounds would require expanded sewage treatment facilities and electrical lines. 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: 110334, 663 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blue Ridge Parkway KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia 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/910376488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 910376487; 15092-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina for the next 20 or more years are proposed. The parkway is 469 miles long, traverses the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, and connects Shenandoah National Park to the north with Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the south. Created as a national rural roadway with limited access, the parkway was designed for recreational driving free from commercial traffic. Today, the parkway encompasses 82,000 acres of federal land and shares over 1,000 miles of boundary with some 4,000 adjacent landowners, eight associated federally recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, and several towns and cities. The parkway offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 public secondary at-grade access points from regional road systems. Many of these roads have recently been or are in the process of being improved by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more residential development, traffic, and loss of scenery adjacent to the parkway. The National Park Service has operated the parkway since establishment using a master plan and land use maps for guidance. However, the master plan is outdated, and an increasing array of issues requires guidance through an approved General Management Plan (GMP). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would actively manage the parkway as a traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape. To support that experience, many of the recreation areas would provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities and development would be applied to parkway lands. This alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. Under Alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the larger regions resources and economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and experiences. A variety of more modern recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, including a paved multiuse trail which would be developed parallel to the parkway along portions of the Highlands segment in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A GMP would define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved and provide a framework for making decisions about parkway resources, visitor experience opportunities, visitor use, and development of facilities. The natural and special natural resource zones proposed under Alternative B would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The designation of 10,139 acres (12.3 percent) of parkway lands as recreation zone under Alternative B would create adverse impacts such as vegetation loss, wildlife habitat alternations, and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Increased disturbances to wildlife would also result from more visitors to the less accessible areas of the parkway. Upgrades to provide showers and recreational vehicle water and electrical hookups at the parkway's nine campgrounds would require expanded sewage treatment facilities and electrical lines. 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: 110334, 663 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blue Ridge Parkway KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia 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/910376487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 910376486; 15096-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The 72,186-acre park lies within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands and the 1000-foot-deep gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature. In 2007, approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the 2009 draft EIS and this abbreviated final EIS responds to and incorporates public and agency comments. Under Alternative 2, cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails. Primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on sigletrack trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact forest tracks would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources for the next 20 years. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0184D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110338, 124 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia 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/910376486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376481; 15095-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376480; 15095-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376478; 15095-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376477; 15095-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376475; 15095-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376474; 15095-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376472; 15095-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376471; 15095-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376470; 15095-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376469; 15095-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376467; 15095-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376466; 15095-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376465; 15095-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 910376464; 15092-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina for the next 20 or more years are proposed. The parkway is 469 miles long, traverses the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, and connects Shenandoah National Park to the north with Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the south. Created as a national rural roadway with limited access, the parkway was designed for recreational driving free from commercial traffic. Today, the parkway encompasses 82,000 acres of federal land and shares over 1,000 miles of boundary with some 4,000 adjacent landowners, eight associated federally recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, and several towns and cities. The parkway offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 public secondary at-grade access points from regional road systems. Many of these roads have recently been or are in the process of being improved by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more residential development, traffic, and loss of scenery adjacent to the parkway. The National Park Service has operated the parkway since establishment using a master plan and land use maps for guidance. However, the master plan is outdated, and an increasing array of issues requires guidance through an approved General Management Plan (GMP). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would actively manage the parkway as a traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape. To support that experience, many of the recreation areas would provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities and development would be applied to parkway lands. This alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. Under Alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the larger regions resources and economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and experiences. A variety of more modern recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, including a paved multiuse trail which would be developed parallel to the parkway along portions of the Highlands segment in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A GMP would define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved and provide a framework for making decisions about parkway resources, visitor experience opportunities, visitor use, and development of facilities. The natural and special natural resource zones proposed under Alternative B would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The designation of 10,139 acres (12.3 percent) of parkway lands as recreation zone under Alternative B would create adverse impacts such as vegetation loss, wildlife habitat alternations, and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Increased disturbances to wildlife would also result from more visitors to the less accessible areas of the parkway. Upgrades to provide showers and recreational vehicle water and electrical hookups at the parkway's nine campgrounds would require expanded sewage treatment facilities and electrical lines. 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: 110334, 663 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blue Ridge Parkway KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia 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/910376464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376463; 15095-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376462; 15095-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376460; 15095-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376459; 15095-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376421; 15095-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376418; 15095-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376414; 15095-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376410; 15095-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376407; 15095-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376404; 15095-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376400; 15095-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376397; 15095-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376394; 15095-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376387; 15095-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376380; 15095-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376373; 15095-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376367; 15095-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376359; 15095-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376349; 15095-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376336; 15095-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376326; 15095-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376315; 15095-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376309; 15095-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376301; 15095-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376285; 15095-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 39] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 910376282; 15095-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910376282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 908487028; 15096 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The 72,186-acre park lies within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands and the 1000-foot-deep gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature. In 2007, approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the 2009 draft EIS and this abbreviated final EIS responds to and incorporates public and agency comments. Under Alternative 2, cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails. Primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on sigletrack trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact forest tracks would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources for the next 20 years. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0184D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110338, 124 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia 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/908487028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 908487025; 15095 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a revenue source that could 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 proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements could alter existing drainage patterns and cause erosion and siltation. Construction would generate fugitive dust and emissions, disturb plant communities, and remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0344D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110337, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/908487025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+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 Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 908487019; 15092 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina for the next 20 or more years are proposed. The parkway is 469 miles long, traverses the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, and connects Shenandoah National Park to the north with Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the south. Created as a national rural roadway with limited access, the parkway was designed for recreational driving free from commercial traffic. Today, the parkway encompasses 82,000 acres of federal land and shares over 1,000 miles of boundary with some 4,000 adjacent landowners, eight associated federally recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, and several towns and cities. The parkway offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 public secondary at-grade access points from regional road systems. Many of these roads have recently been or are in the process of being improved by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more residential development, traffic, and loss of scenery adjacent to the parkway. The National Park Service has operated the parkway since establishment using a master plan and land use maps for guidance. However, the master plan is outdated, and an increasing array of issues requires guidance through an approved General Management Plan (GMP). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would actively manage the parkway as a traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape. To support that experience, many of the recreation areas would provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities and development would be applied to parkway lands. This alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. Under Alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the larger regions resources and economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and experiences. A variety of more modern recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, including a paved multiuse trail which would be developed parallel to the parkway along portions of the Highlands segment in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A GMP would define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved and provide a framework for making decisions about parkway resources, visitor experience opportunities, visitor use, and development of facilities. The natural and special natural resource zones proposed under Alternative B would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The designation of 10,139 acres (12.3 percent) of parkway lands as recreation zone under Alternative B would create adverse impacts such as vegetation loss, wildlife habitat alternations, and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Increased disturbances to wildlife would also result from more visitors to the less accessible areas of the parkway. Upgrades to provide showers and recreational vehicle water and electrical hookups at the parkway's nine campgrounds would require expanded sewage treatment facilities and electrical lines. 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: 110334, 663 pages, October 7, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blue Ridge Parkway KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia 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/908487019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-10-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 7, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287729; 15086-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287727; 15086-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287722; 15086-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287718; 15086-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287715; 15086-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287711; 15086-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 909287710; 15086-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287685; 15085-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287666; 15085-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287656; 15085-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287649; 15085-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287643; 15085-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. AN - 909287150; 15089-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wilderness and backcountry management plan for Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior in Michigan is proposed. Isle Royale National Park is located in the northwestern section of the lake, within 14 miles of the Ontario (Canada) shoreline, 20 miles of Minnesota, and approximately 45 miles from Michigans Upper Peninsula. The park may be accessed by ferry, seaplane, or private boat. The proposed plan would provide guidelines for the non-developed areas of the park, excluding the open water motorized zone and the developed zone, which consist of Rock Harbor, Windigo, and Mott Island Headquarters. The planning scope includes all visitors using the overnight permitting system. Alternatives for management of overnight camping and boating, day use, camp fires, fire towers, and picnic tables are considered in this final EIS. The combination of preferred alternatives would: establish a mainland-based central permitting office to improve trip planning services and proactively manage recreation in the park; explore options for funding a backcountry office; manage Spring visitation so that it does not increase over historic levels; establish group size limits for day trips outside of the developed zone; explore options for adding a new loop trail of three to five miles in the Windigo area that would remain as much as possible within the non-wilderness boundary; move fire rings between campgrounds on a rotational basis as resource impacts and fuel availability necessitates; remove Ishpeming fire tower and restore the site to natural conditions; maintain Ojibway fire tower for present and future administrative needs; and keep or remove Feldtmann tower based on its utility for administrative purposes, including telecommunications and wildlife telemetry monitoring. Although the preferred alternative for overnight use would add one campsite at North Desor campground and a few rustic cabins in Rock Harbor, no new campgrounds would be constructed other than those approved in the park's general management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would preserve the park's wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources. Higher visitation levels mid-season would allow for greater public access to the parks wilderness and backcountry, while lower visitation in the Spring and Fall would allow for opportunities for greater solitude. Existing facilities would be used more efficiently, while unnecessary facilities would be removed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some long-term, cumulative loss of vegetation would occur due to the creation of unauthorized trails by firewood seekers. New facilities and removal of some existing facilities would displace more vegetation and soil and the associated wildlife habitat. Removal of fire towers would eliminate historically significant structures, but at least one remaining structure would function as a historical record. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0061D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110331, 432 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Control KW - Great Lakes KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Isle Royale National Park KW - Lake Superior KW - Michigan KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK+WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK+WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287107; 15085-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287090; 15085-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287075; 15085-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909287062; 15085-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 40 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286511; 15085-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 39 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286486; 15085-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286466; 15085-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286449; 15085-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286428; 15085-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 44 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286418; 15085-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286398; 15085-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286398?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286392; 15085-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 42 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286383; 15085-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286370; 15085-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 41 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286362; 15085-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286350; 15085-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286342; 15085-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286329; 15085-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286321; 15085-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286311; 15085-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286286; 15085-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286257; 15085-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286167; 15085-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286143; 15085-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286115; 15085-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286095; 15085-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909286040; 15085-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 55 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285745; 15085-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285735; 15085-7_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285724; 15085-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 38 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285721; 15085-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 52 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285711; 15085-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285704; 15085-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 51 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285694; 15085-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285679; 15085-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285667; 15085-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 49 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285646; 15085-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 29 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285396; 15085-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285375; 15085-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 909285349; 15085-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 907026665; 15085 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, as contemplated in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), is proposed. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action. Together, the two agreements attempt to resolve long-standing conflicts in the Klamath River Basin. The KHSA was developed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The Klamath Basin's history is one of fish harvest, dam construction, water diversion, and corresponding changes in the basin's water quality, hydrology, and natural resources. As the largest water management effort in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Bureau of Reclamations Klamath Project features include a system of reservoirs, dams, canals, and pumps, and use of Gerber Reservoir and Clear Lake to reduce flooding of lands in the Tule Lake area. The project irrigates up to 235,000 acres of agricultural land and provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, by affecting downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. This alternative would include the complete removal of the dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. This alternative would include implementation of the KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 110327, Draft EIS--1,864 pages, Appendices--938 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907026665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LIMESTONE HILLS TRAINING AREA LAND WITHDRAWAL, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 907022548; 15084 AB - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of 18,644 acres of federal lands within the Limestone Hills Training Area (LHTA) in Broadwater County, Montana from administration by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Butte Field Office is proposed. The withdrawal and segregation from mineral entry would allow the Montana Army National Guard (MTARNG) to continue military exercises and live firing as part of the training mission of the Guard's Fort Harrison installation. The LHTA, which lies near Townsend, has supported the military mission of the National Guard since the 1950s. In 1984, the BLM granted the MTARNG a 30-year right-of-way to use federal land within the LHTA for military purposes under specific terms and conditions. The grant expires on March 26, 2014. Due to unexploded ordnance contamination in the Limestone Hills, the appropriate authority for continued military use of the area would be a withdrawal that could only be authorized by Congress. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this final legislative EIS. Under Alternative 1, the LHTA would continue to be used for training by means of military land withdrawal and most agency responsibilities for resource management would shift from BLM to the MTARNG. Under Alternative 2, resource management responsibilities would be shared so that most resources in the closure area (8,069 acres) would be managed by the MTARNG and most resources in the non-closure area would be managed by the BLM. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would involve provisions that would adjust the MTARNG resource management approach to include practices similar to those currently in place for the BLM under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. MTARNG would assume most resource management responsibilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The withdrawal of BLM-administered lands would allow Fort Harrison to continue to meet its assigned training mission in a realistic training environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Military training maneuvers within the LHTA would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and result in soil and water contamination due to the explosion of ordnance. Grazing would be restricted in areas where maneuvers occur regularly. LEGAL MANDATES: Engle Act of 1958 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 07-0191D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110326, 731 pages and maps, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Defense Programs KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Munitions KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Harrison KW - Montana KW - Engle Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907022548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LIMESTONE+HILLS+TRAINING+AREA+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=LIMESTONE+HILLS+TRAINING+AREA+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Harrison, Helena, Montana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. AN - 16387864; 15089 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wilderness and backcountry management plan for Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior in Michigan is proposed. Isle Royale National Park is located in the northwestern section of the lake, within 14 miles of the Ontario (Canada) shoreline, 20 miles of Minnesota, and approximately 45 miles from Michigans Upper Peninsula. The park may be accessed by ferry, seaplane, or private boat. The proposed plan would provide guidelines for the non-developed areas of the park, excluding the open water motorized zone and the developed zone, which consist of Rock Harbor, Windigo, and Mott Island Headquarters. The planning scope includes all visitors using the overnight permitting system. Alternatives for management of overnight camping and boating, day use, camp fires, fire towers, and picnic tables are considered in this final EIS. The combination of preferred alternatives would: establish a mainland-based central permitting office to improve trip planning services and proactively manage recreation in the park; explore options for funding a backcountry office; manage Spring visitation so that it does not increase over historic levels; establish group size limits for day trips outside of the developed zone; explore options for adding a new loop trail of three to five miles in the Windigo area that would remain as much as possible within the non-wilderness boundary; move fire rings between campgrounds on a rotational basis as resource impacts and fuel availability necessitates; remove Ishpeming fire tower and restore the site to natural conditions; maintain Ojibway fire tower for present and future administrative needs; and keep or remove Feldtmann tower based on its utility for administrative purposes, including telecommunications and wildlife telemetry monitoring. Although the preferred alternative for overnight use would add one campsite at North Desor campground and a few rustic cabins in Rock Harbor, no new campgrounds would be constructed other than those approved in the park's general management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would preserve the park's wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources. Higher visitation levels mid-season would allow for greater public access to the parks wilderness and backcountry, while lower visitation in the Spring and Fall would allow for opportunities for greater solitude. Existing facilities would be used more efficiently, while unnecessary facilities would be removed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some long-term, cumulative loss of vegetation would occur due to the creation of unauthorized trails by firewood seekers. New facilities and removal of some existing facilities would displace more vegetation and soil and the associated wildlife habitat. Removal of fire towers would eliminate historically significant structures, but at least one remaining structure would function as a historical record. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0061D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110331, 432 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Control KW - Great Lakes KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Isle Royale National Park KW - Lake Superior KW - Michigan KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK+WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK+WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY (DBOC) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16377411; 15086 AB - PURPOSE: The continued authorization of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) shellfish operation, which consists of commercial production, harvesting, processing, and sale of shellfish at Point Reyes National Seashore, California is proposed. The Seashore is located in western Marin County in central California, 40 miles northwest of San Francisco. The existing reservation of use and occupancy and associated special use permit (SUP) held by DBOC will expire on November 30, 2012. The company's operations occur on uplands adjacent to Drakes Estero and within Drakes Estero itself. All of the upland, tidal, and subtidal lands on which DBOC conducts its operations are owned in fee by the United States. Drakes Estero is a system of five branching bays encompassing 2,500 acres and separated by low converging ridges. From west to east, they are: Barries Bay, Creamery Bay, Schooner Bay, Home Bay, and Estero de Limantour. The 1,700-acre project area includes DBOC facilities and operations in congressionally-designated potential wilderness (1,363 acres), 2.6 acres of onshore property, and two acres incorporating the well and septic areas. The project area also includes a kayak launch parking area and an access road leading from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. All land and water portions of the project area are owned by the National Park Service. This draft EIS explores four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) under which existing authorizations would expire and conversion of Drakes Estero to full wilderness would ensue. Under the three action alternatives, a new 10-year SUP would be issued for commercial oyster operations in Drakes Estero through November 30, 2022. The action alternatives would involve differing levels of onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations. Alternative B would allow existing onshore facilities and infrastructure and offshore operations for a period of 10 years. Alternative C would allow a level of use that is consistent with the conditions and operations that existed at the time the current SUP was signed in April 2008. Alternative D considers expansion of operations and development of new infrastructure as requested by DBOC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new SUP would allow DBOC to cultivate and produce 500,000 to 850,000 pounds annually of shellfish including Pacific oysters, European flat oysters, Manila clams, and purple-hinged rock scallops. DBOC would be required to pay fair market value for the use of federal property, which includes onshore and offshore areas within the permit boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Offshore infrastructure and operations would continue on 138 or more acres of intertidal wetlands, resulting in long-term impacts on estuarine subtidal and intertidal systems due to bottom bags, cluster culture for shell hardening, and anchors for bag lines lying on the bottom substrate. Operation of boats and barges would continue to disturb sediment and impact sandbars and mudflats. Propeller damage to subtidal and intertidal aquatic eelgrass beds could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law (PL) 111-88. JF - EPA number: 110328, 722 pages, September 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Point Reyes National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law (PL) 111-88, Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DRAKES+BAY+OYSTER+COMPANY+%28DBOC%29+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes Station, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 49 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287635; 15082-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 48 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287634; 15082-4_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 47 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287633; 15082-4_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 46 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287632; 15082-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 45 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287631; 15082-4_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 44 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287630; 15082-4_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 43 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287629; 15082-4_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 42 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287628; 15082-4_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 41 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287627; 15082-4_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 40 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287626; 15082-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 39 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287625; 15082-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 38 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287624; 15082-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 37 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287623; 15082-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 36 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287622; 15082-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 35 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287621; 15082-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 34 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287618; 15082-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 33 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287616; 15082-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 32 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287615; 15082-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 31 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287613; 15082-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 30 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287612; 15082-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 29 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287611; 15082-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 28 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287610; 15082-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 27 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287609; 15082-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 26 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287608; 15082-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 25 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287605; 15082-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 24 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287600; 15082-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 23 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287594; 15082-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 22 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287588; 15082-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 21 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287583; 15082-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 20 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287578; 15082-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 19 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287571; 15082-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 18 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287567; 15082-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 17 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287560; 15082-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 16 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287555; 15082-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 15 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287549; 15082-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 14 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287046; 15082-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 13 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287033; 15082-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 12 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287018; 15082-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 11 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909287009; 15082-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909287009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 10 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286997; 15082-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 5 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286987; 15082-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 4 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286971; 15082-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 3 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286959; 15082-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 2 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909286951; 15082-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909286951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 9 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285717; 15082-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 8 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285698; 15082-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 7 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285678; 15082-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 1 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285661; 15082-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 6 of 49] T2 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 909285649; 15082-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/909285649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905874325; 15079-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 57 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874252; 15076-8_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 43 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874246; 15076-8_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 42 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874239; 15076-8_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 41 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874231; 15076-8_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 40 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874225; 15076-8_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 39 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874218; 15076-8_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 36 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874211; 15076-8_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 35 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874202; 15076-8_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 34 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874198; 15076-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 33 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874192; 15076-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 32 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874186; 15076-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 31 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874181; 15076-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 30 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874176; 15076-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 29 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874173; 15076-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 25 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874168; 15076-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874164; 15076-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874161; 15076-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874155; 15076-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874150; 15076-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874144; 15076-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 23 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874109; 15076-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874104; 15076-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874099; 15076-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874093; 15076-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874089; 15076-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874080; 15076-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 38 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874078; 15076-8_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 17 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874077; 15076-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 16 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874074; 15076-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 37 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874070; 15076-8_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874065; 15076-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 28 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874063; 15076-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 59 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874061; 15076-8_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 27 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874060; 15076-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 26 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874057; 15076-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874055; 15076-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 58 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874054; 15076-8_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874051; 15076-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874049; 15076-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 52 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874047; 15076-8_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874045; 15076-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 51 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874043; 15076-8_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874041; 15076-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 50 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874036; 15076-8_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874035; 15076-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 49 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874031; 15076-8_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874029; 15076-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874026; 15076-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874023; 15076-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905874018; 15076-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 6 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873983; 15081-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 5 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873980; 15081-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 4 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873976; 15081-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 3 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873968; 15081-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 2 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873960; 15081-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). [Part 1 of 6] T2 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 905873956; 15081-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873950; 15079-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873947; 15079-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873940; 15079-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873930; 15079-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873920; 15079-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873913; 15079-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873906; 15079-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873899; 15079-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873886; 15079-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873876; 15079-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873870; 15079-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873861; 15079-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873851; 15079-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873846; 15079-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873841; 15079-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873830; 15079-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873814; 15079-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873808; 15079-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873796; 15079-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873787; 15079-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 48 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873635; 15076-8_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 47 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873622; 15076-8_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 46 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873609; 15076-8_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873481; 15079-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873474; 15079-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873466; 15079-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873460; 15079-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873451; 15079-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 56 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873382; 15076-8_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 55 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873368; 15076-8_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 54 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873352; 15076-8_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 53 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873335; 15076-8_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 45 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873211; 15076-8_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. [Part 44 of 59] T2 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 905873197; 15076-8_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. AN - 904005040; 15082 AB - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The study area extends five miles from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. The current bridge crossing has become congested and provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion and the existing draw bridge hampers both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. The area under the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake. Alternatives considered in the draft EIS included a No Build Alternative and four multi-modal build alternatives that would either replace or rehabilitate the existing river crossing, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consider tolling, and implement transportation demand and system management measures. In July 2008, the project sponsors adopted the locally preferred alternative (LPA) as a refined version of Alternative 3, which includes the following transportation improvements: a new river crossing and associated I-5 highway improvements, including seven interchanges, north and south of the river; a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the project corridor; extension of light rail transit from the Expo Center in Portland to Clark College in Vancouver, and associated transit improvements, including transit stations, park and rides, bus route changes, and expansion of a light rail transit maintenance facility; a new toll on motorists using the river crossing as both a financing and demand management tool; and transportation demand and system management measures to be implemented with the project. Capital cost of implementing the LPA is estimated in year-of-expenditure dollars at $3.4 to $3.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would vastly improve automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation options between the two cities, as well as enhance the movement of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail during an earthquake. Significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion and the presence of rapid transit options. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would result in 69 commercial and 59 residential displacements. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and four acres of park and recreation resources would be affected. Traffic-generated and transit-generated noise would impact 325 and 31 receptors, respectively. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 08-0215D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110324, Final EIS--801 pages and maps, Appendices--838 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Columbia River KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA. AN - 904005036; 15076 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM, which was established on June 9, 2000, encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands. Much of the vegetation is classified Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti such as saguaro, Bigelows cholla, and staghorn cholla. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, ocotillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. Within these natural environments, the IFNM contains habitat for two endangered species, including the lesser long-nosed bat and Nichol Turks head cactus, as well as several other species of concern. Abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize preservation and would protect monument resources by limiting use to an allowable minimum. This alternative would place more restrictions on motorized travel throughout the monument and favor dispersed, non-motorized recreational activities over motorized recreational activities. Alternative D would emphasize the maintenance of existing public access to monument lands and resources. It would include the most miles of routes designated for motorized use, allow for the establishment of more recreational sites, and make the entire monument available for grazing. Alternative C, which is the proposed plan, would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. The proposed RMP would: allocate 29,820 acres as a desert bighorn sheep habitat management area; manage 2,240 acres of Nichol Turks head cactus habitat as the Waterman Mountains vegetation habitat management area; conserve desert tortoise habitat; manage 9,510 acres of IFNM to protect wilderness characteristics; allocate the entire INFM as a special recreation management area with a strategy targeting the local recreation-tourism market; prohibit the use and discharge of firearms within the IFNM, except for permitted or authorized hunting activities; designate 117,520 acres for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing routes; and designate 10,880 acres as closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide for management consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest and would address the increased demand for public land to accommodate many forms of recreational activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts. OHV use would damage fragile desert soils, inhibiting vegetation recruitment and harming wildlife species. Livestock grazing could have long-term ecological consequences, eroding soils, spreading invasive species, and impairing wildlife habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0099D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110318, Final EIS--436 pages and maps, Appendices--318 pages and maps, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-11/001 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - Ironwood Forest National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 904005023; 15079 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 300,820 acres of land and sub-surface minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office in the coastal region of Southern California are analyzed. The South Coast planning area encompasses portions of five highly urbanized southern California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles) with a growing population estimated at over 20 million. Since completion of the original South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1994, new circumstances have prompted the need for a revision of the plan. These include continued population growth and urban development, the creation of multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans in San Diego and Riverside counties, designation of wilderness, land acquisitions to support habitat conservation by the BLM and other agencies, and the changing needs and interests of the public. The planning area contains three designated wilderness areas, and segments of the Santa Margarita River eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Major issues addressed include coordination with local governments for habitat conservation; lands, realty, energy and minerals management; recreation and public access; designation and management of special areas; wildland fire, fuels, and rangeland management; protection of cultural resources; and management of visual resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Conservation Alternative, generally would emphasize the maximum preservation of natural and cultural resources through partnerships with local governments and strict implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. This alternative would provide visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource values through low impact recreation opportunities. Alternative C, the Public Use Alternative, would provide for enhanced recreational access, including motorized use, and more opportunities for development such as oil and gas and renewable energy, saleable minerals, transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs), sand and gravel production, and communication facilities. Public use and development of resources would be coordinated with local governments through flexible implementation of regional habitat conservation plans. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize coordination with regional habitat conservation planning and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. New areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be added in the Riverside/San Bernardino County management area (MA) and the Los Angeles MA. ACECs in the Beauty Mountain MA and the San Diego County MA would be expanded and combined. ACECs, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic rivers would be avoidance areas for ROWs, including wind and renewable energy, and land use authorizations. Approximately 30,000 acres would remain open for oil and gas leasing compared with 4,300 for Alternative B and 35,000 for Alternative C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to designated routes on 89,270 acres and 44,550 acres would be closed to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would: 1) ensure consistency, to the legal extent practical, with the various multi-species planning efforts and partnership agreements BLM is working to establish throughout the South Coast region; 2) re-evaluate management direction in light of new information and change in circumstances; 3) assess the impact of BLM management on threatened and endangered species listed since 1993; and 4) assess the energy related needs of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of lands for mineral, oil, and gas development or OHV recreation would potentially result in emissions of green house gases and criteria pollutants. Surface-disturbance from vegetation management activities, grazing, and mineral and energy development could increase erosion and impact plant species. Actions associated with fire suppression, mineral exploration and development, and recreation could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. Under Alternative, D the cumulative output impact from oil and gas production and sand and gravel extraction would be 25 percent less than the baseline condition, but would not have a substantial effect on the local economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110321, Draft EIS--916 pages, Appendices--293 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+RIVERSIDE%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO%2C+ORANGE+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2005 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 16387497; 15081 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of motorized travel and firearm hunting on 67,000 acres of semiprimitive areas within the Huron-Manistee National Forest in the northern half of the lower Peninsula of Michigan are proposed. The 2006 Forest Plan was approved on March 20, 2006 and new management direction was implemented in the 1.0-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests. An appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the application of a Forest Service planning tool, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and in the evaluation of snowmobiling and firearm hunting activities. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for ROS semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. The court did not set aside the 2006 Forest Plan, but instead directed the Forest Service to perform additional analysis. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would leave the 2006 Forest Plan unchanged. Under Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, the Forest Service would ban firearm hunting and snowmobile use in some portion of the 13 existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the primitive area, subject to existing rights. Alternative 3 would change the Management Area (MA) designation of the 14 affected areas to match the ROS class inventory. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, the MA designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas would be changed to special areas which would be managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas would be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area would be maintained. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alternatives 3 and 4 would change the ROS direction for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness to reflect the current recreation opportunities offered there. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of current recreation activities, settings and opportunities (such as elimination of firearm hunting and snowmobile trails) in the 14 analysis areas may affect recreation experiences of visitors, economies of local communities and natural resources in these areas. Under Alternative 2, the prohibition of firearm hunting may cause larger deer populations known to damage Karner blue butterflies, their host plants, and butterfly habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110323, 478 pages, September 23, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2005+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 112 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874429; 15065-7_0112 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 114 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874425; 15065-7_0114 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 111 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874414; 15065-7_0111 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 113 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874408; 15065-7_0113 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 113 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 110 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874400; 15065-7_0110 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 103 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874389; 15065-7_0103 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 117 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874388; 15065-7_0117 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 117 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 96 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874377; 15065-7_0096 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 109 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874374; 15065-7_0109 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 116 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874364; 15065-7_0116 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 98 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874361; 15065-7_0098 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 98 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 115 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874349; 15065-7_0115 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 94 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874346; 15065-7_0094 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874341; 15067-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874337; 15067-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874334; 15067-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 93 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874329; 15065-7_0093 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874327; 15067-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874320; 15067-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 92 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874310; 15065-7_0092 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 92 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874306; 15067-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 105 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874303; 15065-7_0105 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 91 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874295; 15065-7_0091 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874292; 15067-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874286; 15067-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 90 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874278; 15065-7_0090 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874276; 15067-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 89 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874262; 15065-7_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 108 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874260; 15065-7_0108 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 102 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874238; 15065-7_0102 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 88 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874236; 15065-7_0088 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 88 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 101 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874216; 15065-7_0101 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 97 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874205; 15065-7_0097 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 100 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874197; 15065-7_0100 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 86 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874195; 15065-7_0086 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 190 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874191; 15065-7_0190 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 190 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 106 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874189; 15065-7_0106 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 99 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874185; 15065-7_0099 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 189 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874179; 15065-7_0189 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 189 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874174; 15067-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874172; 15067-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 188 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874169; 15065-7_0188 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 188 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874165; 15067-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874163; 15067-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874160; 15067-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874151; 15067-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874149; 15067-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874145; 15067-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874140; 15067-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874137; 15067-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874128; 15067-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 185 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874126; 15065-7_0185 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 185 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874124; 15067-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874118; 15067-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874114; 15067-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 378,884 surface acres of public lands and approximately 2.2 million subsurface acres of mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, in Eagle, Grand, Routt, Jackson, Larimer, and Summit Counties, Colorado are proposed. Major issues contributing to the necessity of revising the current resource management plan (RMP) which was prepared in the 1980s include those associated with recreation, special management areas and designations, energy development (especially with regard to oil and gas leasing), vegetation, wildlife habitat, sagebrush habitat, and surface water and groundwater resources. The planning area is composed of lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Colorado, as well as of lands owned by private individuals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would allocate resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. In general, management direction would be broad in order to accommodate a variety of values and uses. Alternative C would emphasize protecting resource values and sustaining or restoring the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife, and fish species including the habitats necessary for conserving and recovering listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Under Alternative D, the appropriate mix of uses would be based upon making the most of resources that target social and economic outcomes while, at the same time, protecting land health. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the three existing wilderness study areas (8,872 acres) and designation of up to seven areas of critical environmental concern (9,766 acres); management of two special recreation management areas (15,550 acres) and four extensive recreation management areas (48,200 acres); prohibition of motorized travel in two wilderness study areas; and the closure of 9,400 acres of federal mineral estate in the wilderness study areas to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 123,700 acres of federal mineral estate would be open to consideration for coal leasing and 625,200 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing and development, while an additional 18,200 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the river segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses the increase in uses and demands within the planning area, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities from mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant species, and affect water quality. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would increase the risk of wildland fire. Stipulations and conditions for mineral exploration and motorized vehicle restrictions would impact transportation and travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110309, Volume 1--501 pages, Volume 2--767 pages, Volume 3--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Coal KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=KREMMLING+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GRAND%2C+ROUTT%2C+JACKSON%2C+LARIMER%2C+AND+SUMMIT+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, Kremmling, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 183 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874096; 15065-7_0183 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 183 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 182 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874083; 15065-7_0182 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 182 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 179 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874042; 15065-7_0179 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 179 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 165 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874040; 15065-7_0165 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 165 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 164 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874028; 15065-7_0164 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 164 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 172 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874022; 15065-7_0172 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 172 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 156 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874017; 15065-7_0156 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 156 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 171 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874011; 15065-7_0171 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 171 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 155 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874010; 15065-7_0155 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 155 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 174 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874009; 15065-7_0174 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 174 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 84 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874008; 15065-7_0084 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 83 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874001; 15065-7_0083 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 170 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905874000; 15065-7_0170 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 170 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 173 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873999; 15065-7_0173 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 173 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 154 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873998; 15065-7_0154 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 154 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 169 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873993; 15065-7_0169 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 169 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 145 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873987; 15065-7_0145 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 145 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 158 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873973; 15065-7_0158 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 158 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 142 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873967; 15065-7_0142 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 142 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 144 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873964; 15065-7_0144 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 144 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 157 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873951; 15065-7_0157 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 157 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 141 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873946; 15065-7_0141 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 141 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 80 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873945; 15065-7_0080 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 151 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873931; 15065-7_0151 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 151 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 139 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873923; 15065-7_0139 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 139 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 79 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873919; 15065-7_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 150 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873910; 15065-7_0150 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 150 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 72 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873882; 15065-7_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 137 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873868; 15065-7_0137 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 137 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 71 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873854; 15065-7_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 136 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873837; 15065-7_0136 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 136 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 73 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873827; 15065-7_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 70 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873825; 15065-7_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 167 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873810; 15065-7_0167 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 167 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 69 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873801; 15065-7_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 132 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873790; 15065-7_0132 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 132 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 166 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873784; 15065-7_0166 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 166 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 68 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873773; 15065-7_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 43 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873770; 15065-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 65 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873759; 15065-7_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 131 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873754; 15065-7_0131 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 161 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873750; 15065-7_0161 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 161 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 64 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873719; 15065-7_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 130 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873715; 15065-7_0130 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 130 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 129 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873679; 15065-7_0129 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 129 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 51 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873674; 15065-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873666; 15065-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 177 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873656; 15065-7_0177 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 177 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873628; 15065-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 45 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873612; 15065-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 159 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873611; 15065-7_0159 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 159 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 49 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873603; 15065-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 61 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873600; 15065-7_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 176 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873577; 15065-7_0176 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 176 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 126 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873573; 15065-7_0126 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 126 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 42 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873568; 15065-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873566; 15065-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 60 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873557; 15065-7_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 41 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873528; 15065-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 77 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873515; 15065-7_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 148 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873507; 15065-7_0148 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 148 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 124 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873498; 15065-7_0124 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873488; 15065-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 59 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873479; 15065-7_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 147 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873471; 15065-7_0147 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 147 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 39 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873467; 15065-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 122 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873440; 15065-7_0122 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 122 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 76 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873439; 15065-7_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 38 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873435; 15065-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 120 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873420; 15065-7_0120 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 35 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873414; 15065-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 75 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873410; 15065-7_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 121 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873407; 15065-7_0121 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 34 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873373; 15065-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873372; 15065-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 48 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873370; 15065-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 118 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873353; 15065-7_0118 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 118 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 33 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873332; 15065-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 47 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873325; 15065-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 163 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873315; 15065-7_0163 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 163 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873312; 15065-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 153 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873300; 15065-7_0153 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 153 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873290; 15065-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 162 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873279; 15065-7_0162 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 162 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873275; 15065-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 31 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873269; 15065-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 152 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873266; 15065-7_0152 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 152 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873247; 15065-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873235; 15065-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 30 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873228; 15065-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 53 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873222; 15065-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873204; 15065-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 29 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873195; 15065-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873192; 15065-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 62 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873188; 15065-7_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873181; 15071-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 52 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873180; 15065-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873168; 15065-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873164; 15071-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 28 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873156; 15065-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 146 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873154; 15065-7_0146 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 146 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873150; 15071-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873140; 15065-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905873138; 15071-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 27 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873120; 15065-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 46 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873118; 15065-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873104; 15065-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873076; 15065-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 24 of 190] T2 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 905873003; 15065-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 504,910 acres of federal lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley (formerly known as Glenwood Springs) Field Office, in western Colorado are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover portions of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin, and Routt Counties. Surface and subsurface land ownership in the planning area is mixed and includes other lands administered by the federal government, state of Colorado lands, and private property. New resource assessments and scientific information is available to help evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increase in uses and demands on BLM lands (such as natural gas development and recreation) and concerns over scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased interest in protecting natural and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would emphasize mixed use. Alternative C would emphasize conservation, while Alternative D would emphasize resource use. Key components of Alternative B include: maintenance of the four existing wilderness study areas (27,700 acres) and designation of nine areas of critical environmental concern (34,500 acres); designation of six special recreation management areas and six extensive recreation management areas; closure of all lands to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and the designation of 467,600 acres as limited to existing routes, and 37,300 acres as closed to OHV use; and the designation of 651,400 acres as open to oil and gas exploration and development with a variety of stipulations and conditions of approval. Alternative B includes options to find two segments of Deep Creek and two segments of the Colorado River suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or to recommend adopting and implementing a stakeholder management plan to protect the outstanding remarkable values of the Colorado River segments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP incorporates new data, addresses land use issues and conflicts, specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities would be allowed on BLM lands, and incorporates the mandate of multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities and permanent conversion of areas to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and energy development or OHV use, would increase erosion and impact plant species. Because large portions of crucial big game habitats coincide with areas of high oil and gas potential, unavoidable wildlife habitat loss would occur. Erosion and sedimentation would adversely impact fish and other aquatic wildlife. Recreational activities, development of energy and mineral resources, and general use would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110307, Volume 1--493 pages, Volume 2--778 pages, Volume 3--Figures, Volume 4--Appendices, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 11-33 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+VALLEY+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MESA%2C+PITKIN%2C+AND+ROUTT+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, Silt, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872665; 15071-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872656; 15071-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872637; 15071-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872624; 15071-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872612; 15071-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872603; 15071-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872595; 15071-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872586; 15071-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 905872571; 15071-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905872571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 904005031; 15071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a permanent Joint Operations Center (JOC) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the National Weather Service (NWS) in north-central Sacramento County, California are proposed. The JOC, which coordinates water supply and flood management operations, includes: Reclamations Central Valley Operations Office; DWRs Division of Operations and Maintenance, Operations Control Office, State Water Project (SWP) Power and Risk Office, and Division of Flood Managements Offices of Operations and Maintenance and Hydrology and Flood Operations including the State-Federal Flood Operations Center; and the NWS Sacramento Weather Forecast Office and California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Currently, Reclamation, DWR, and the NWS are jointly located in a leased building on El Camino Avenue which is space constrained and fails to meet major safety and security requirements. The proposed replacement facility, including special needs, essential services, and requisite office space, would accommodate 600 employees and consist of 200,000 square feet of building space. The new facility would house control centers for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, a flood operations center, backup power supplies, primary and backup communication systems, intense computer infrastructure, and physical and cyber security systems. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the JOC facilities would be constructed at a Reclamation-owned property near Nimbus Fish Hatchery. The 25.5-acre site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of the existing two-lane Nimbus Road used for access to the California Department of Fish and Game regional office and parking areas for the Upper Sunrise Recreation Area of the American River Parkway System. Under Alternative 1, the JOC would be constructed at a currently undeveloped 21.2-acre commercial site on Kilgore Road near Sunrise Boulevard. Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of JOC facilities on the former Mather Air Force Base at a privately owned and partially developed 14.4-acre property on Peter A. McCuen Boulevard. Two site layout configurations, a campus layout option and three-story building option, are being evaluated for the proposed action. Under the standard schedule, construction would begin in early 2013 and take approximately two years. Under the phased schedule, construction of the proposed JOC facility would take five years to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The relocation project would provide a permanent facility that meets state essential service criteria for an emergency operations center. The combined occupancy of Reclamation, DWR, and NWS in a new facility would improve communications and coordination during emergencies such as floods and droughts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would involve possible risks to people and structures caused by strong seismic ground shaking. Under the action alternatives, increases to peak-hour and daily traffic volumes would result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections near the permanent JOC. JF - EPA number: 110313, Draft EIS--720 pages, Appendices--720 pages, September 16, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Communication Systems KW - Economic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904005031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JOINT+OPERATIONS+CENTER+RELOCATION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 900615909; 15057-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lander Field Office, in west-central Wyoming are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover 6.6 million acres of land in Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. No BLM-administered surface or mineral estate occurs in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for the lands in this county. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 2.4 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. The BLM also manages nine waterway segments that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System and the 5,490-acre Little Red Creek Complex which is the only identified land with wilderness characteristics in the planning area. The proposed plan revises the existing 1987 Lander Field Office RMP to address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred during the last 25 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for comparatively more limited resource development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance the use and conservation of resources by designating special resource management areas and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and by emphasizing moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife resources would receive more protection compared to current management, including larger buffers around active raptor nests and greater sage-grouse leks. In areas of high mineral potential, designated development areas would be established. In Dubois, mineral activities would be limited and the area would be closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status species and to support destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. A heritage tourism and recreation buffer would be placed around designated trails. Alternative B would result in the largest acreage proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,632,605 acres), followed by Alternative D (42,855 acres), Alternative A (23,114 acres) and Alternative C (0 acres). Alternatives A and C would designate areas as open for wind-energy development of 2.1 million acres and 2.3 million acres, respectively. Open areas would be substantially smaller under alternatives D (459,720 acres) and B (41,372 acres). Alternative B would restrict wildfire suppression tactics, while Alternative C would allow the full range of management actions across the planning area. Alternatives A and D are more restrictive than Alternative C, but would provide similar flexibility to suppress wildfire while also minimizing damage to resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Designating the Lander Slope ACEC under alternatives A, B, and D would protect cave and karst resources known to be in that area. Alternative D would protect 4,954 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as lands with wilderness characteristics. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants would primarily result from oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development. Impacts to soil resources would result from surface disturbance associated with a variety of resource programs including mineral development, road construction, and recreation such as off-highway vehicle use. Disturbance could also result in erosion and sediment delivery with adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources. Alternatives A and C would not protect wilderness characteristics within the Little Red Creek Complex. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110299, Volume I--599 pages, Volume II--789 pages, Volume III--371 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/047+1610 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management 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/900615909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+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, Lander, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 900615904; 15057-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lander Field Office, in west-central Wyoming are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover 6.6 million acres of land in Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. No BLM-administered surface or mineral estate occurs in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for the lands in this county. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 2.4 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. The BLM also manages nine waterway segments that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System and the 5,490-acre Little Red Creek Complex which is the only identified land with wilderness characteristics in the planning area. The proposed plan revises the existing 1987 Lander Field Office RMP to address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred during the last 25 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for comparatively more limited resource development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance the use and conservation of resources by designating special resource management areas and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and by emphasizing moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife resources would receive more protection compared to current management, including larger buffers around active raptor nests and greater sage-grouse leks. In areas of high mineral potential, designated development areas would be established. In Dubois, mineral activities would be limited and the area would be closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status species and to support destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. A heritage tourism and recreation buffer would be placed around designated trails. Alternative B would result in the largest acreage proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,632,605 acres), followed by Alternative D (42,855 acres), Alternative A (23,114 acres) and Alternative C (0 acres). Alternatives A and C would designate areas as open for wind-energy development of 2.1 million acres and 2.3 million acres, respectively. Open areas would be substantially smaller under alternatives D (459,720 acres) and B (41,372 acres). Alternative B would restrict wildfire suppression tactics, while Alternative C would allow the full range of management actions across the planning area. Alternatives A and D are more restrictive than Alternative C, but would provide similar flexibility to suppress wildfire while also minimizing damage to resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Designating the Lander Slope ACEC under alternatives A, B, and D would protect cave and karst resources known to be in that area. Alternative D would protect 4,954 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as lands with wilderness characteristics. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants would primarily result from oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development. Impacts to soil resources would result from surface disturbance associated with a variety of resource programs including mineral development, road construction, and recreation such as off-highway vehicle use. Disturbance could also result in erosion and sediment delivery with adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources. Alternatives A and C would not protect wilderness characteristics within the Little Red Creek Complex. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110299, Volume I--599 pages, Volume II--789 pages, Volume III--371 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/047+1610 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management 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/900615904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+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, Lander, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 900615901; 15057-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lander Field Office, in west-central Wyoming are proposed. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) would cover 6.6 million acres of land in Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. No BLM-administered surface or mineral estate occurs in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for the lands in this county. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 2.4 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. The BLM also manages nine waterway segments that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System and the 5,490-acre Little Red Creek Complex which is the only identified land with wilderness characteristics in the planning area. The proposed plan revises the existing 1987 Lander Field Office RMP to address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred during the last 25 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for comparatively more limited resource development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance the use and conservation of resources by designating special resource management areas and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and by emphasizing moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife resources would receive more protection compared to current management, including larger buffers around active raptor nests and greater sage-grouse leks. In areas of high mineral potential, designated development areas would be established. In Dubois, mineral activities would be limited and the area would be closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status species and to support destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. A heritage tourism and recreation buffer would be placed around designated trails. Alternative B would result in the largest acreage proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,632,605 acres), followed by Alternative D (42,855 acres), Alternative A (23,114 acres) and Alternative C (0 acres). Alternatives A and C would designate areas as open for wind-energy development of 2.1 million acres and 2.3 million acres, respectively. Open areas would be substantially smaller under alternatives D (459,720 acres) and B (41,372 acres). Alternative B would restrict wildfire suppression tactics, while Alternative C would allow the full range of management actions across the planning area. Alternatives A and D are more restrictive than Alternative C, but would provide similar flexibility to suppress wildfire while also minimizing damage to resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Designating the Lander Slope ACEC under alternatives A, B, and D would protect cave and karst resources known to be in that area. Alternative D would protect 4,954 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as lands with wilderness characteristics. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants would primarily result from oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development. Impacts to soil resources would result from surface disturbance associated with a variety of resource programs including mineral development, road construction, and recreation such as off-highway vehicle use. Disturbance could also result in erosion and sediment delivery with adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources. Alternatives A and C would not protect wilderness characteristics within the Little Red Creek Complex. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110299, Volume I--599 pages, Volume II--789 pages, Volume III--371 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/047+1610 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management 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/900615901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+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, Lander, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615889; 15056-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Education+%26+Training&rft.atitle=The+supervised+as+the+supervisor&rft.au=Stephens%2C+Simon&rft.aulast=Stephens&rft.aufirst=Simon&rft.date=2014-07-30&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=537&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Education+%26+Training&rft.issn=00400912&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615887; 15056-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ESCAMBIA, SANTA ROSA, AND OKALOOSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA AND JACKSON AND HARRISON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ESCAMBIA, SANTA ROSA, AND OKALOOSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA AND JACKSON AND HARRISON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AN - 900615669; 15051-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for the Gulf Islands National Seashore, which encompasses 139,175 acres of barrier islands and coastal mainland in Mississippi and Florida, is proposed. The national seashore consists of 12 separate units stretching along 160 miles from Gulfport, Mississippi, to Fort Walton Beach in the northwest section of Floridas panhandle. The current management plan was finalized in 1978 and no longer adequately addresses the issues facing the national seashore including the 2,000-acre Cat Island boundary expansion and the addition of designated wilderness on Horn and Petit Bois Islands. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would continue the existing management, including recovery efforts to reestablish the national seashores programs and facilities that existed in 2004 before Hurricane Ivan. Under Alternative 2, the concept for management would be to reduce the level of infrastructure rebuilt on the barrier islands and allow natural processes to predominate. The visitor experience would transition into a more primitive island experience, while mainland programs and services would be enhanced. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would involve enhancement of visitor education, research, and resource protection opportunities throughout the national seashore. An environmental education and research center would be established and an active stewardship program would be developed. Historic fortifications and other structures would be rehabilitated to portray their appearance or function during a specific period. A marine management program would include enhanced scientific study and research in the national seashore. Under Alternative 4, the management concept would be to expand and diversify visitor opportunities throughout the national seashore by leveraging additional partnerships. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure that national seashore managers have a clearly defined direction for protecting resources and providing public access for the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management actions could have adverse impacts on natural resources in some areas. Under all of the alternatives, some moderate impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water resources caused by recreational use and facilities would be unavoidable. Impacts on historic structures would be adverse, long term, and of negligible to minor intensity because of the loss of historic fabric during rehabilitation work. Under Alternative 3, an additional 20 full-time-equivalent employees would be required to support increased management activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110293, 432 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Florida KW - Gulf Islands National Seashore KW - Mississippi KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ESCAMBIA%2C+SANTA+ROSA%2C+AND+OKALOOSA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+AND+JACKSON+AND+HARRISON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.title=GULF+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ESCAMBIA%2C+SANTA+ROSA%2C+AND+OKALOOSA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+AND+JACKSON+AND+HARRISON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Breeze, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615592; 15056-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615587; 15056-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615579; 15056-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615578; 15053-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of 17 million acres of land which includes 400,000 acres of surface lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. Like California as a whole, the planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except that it eliminates livestock grazing from the public lands where the Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program. Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives C and D protect the largest area through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, primarily to maintain and enhance biological resource values. Alternatives B, C, and D eliminate the only Back Country Byway from the decision area. Alternatives A and E continue the designation of the Chimney Peak Byway with the latter providing guidance that would improve opportunities and experiences along the route. Alternative B would find two segments of rivers suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The remaining six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternatives C and D would find all eight river segments suitable and, therefore, continue protection. Alternatives A and E would find no segments suitable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 55 percent (8,900 acres ) of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110295, Volume I--408 pages, Volume II--310 pages, Volume III--408 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615573; 15053-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of 17 million acres of land which includes 400,000 acres of surface lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. Like California as a whole, the planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except that it eliminates livestock grazing from the public lands where the Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program. Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives C and D protect the largest area through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, primarily to maintain and enhance biological resource values. Alternatives B, C, and D eliminate the only Back Country Byway from the decision area. Alternatives A and E continue the designation of the Chimney Peak Byway with the latter providing guidance that would improve opportunities and experiences along the route. Alternative B would find two segments of rivers suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The remaining six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternatives C and D would find all eight river segments suitable and, therefore, continue protection. Alternatives A and E would find no segments suitable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 55 percent (8,900 acres ) of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110295, Volume I--408 pages, Volume II--310 pages, Volume III--408 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615553; 15053-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of 17 million acres of land which includes 400,000 acres of surface lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. Like California as a whole, the planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except that it eliminates livestock grazing from the public lands where the Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program. Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives C and D protect the largest area through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, primarily to maintain and enhance biological resource values. Alternatives B, C, and D eliminate the only Back Country Byway from the decision area. Alternatives A and E continue the designation of the Chimney Peak Byway with the latter providing guidance that would improve opportunities and experiences along the route. Alternative B would find two segments of rivers suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The remaining six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternatives C and D would find all eight river segments suitable and, therefore, continue protection. Alternatives A and E would find no segments suitable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 55 percent (8,900 acres ) of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110295, Volume I--408 pages, Volume II--310 pages, Volume III--408 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615524; 15053-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of 17 million acres of land which includes 400,000 acres of surface lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. Like California as a whole, the planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except that it eliminates livestock grazing from the public lands where the Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program. Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives C and D protect the largest area through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, primarily to maintain and enhance biological resource values. Alternatives B, C, and D eliminate the only Back Country Byway from the decision area. Alternatives A and E continue the designation of the Chimney Peak Byway with the latter providing guidance that would improve opportunities and experiences along the route. Alternative B would find two segments of rivers suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The remaining six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternatives C and D would find all eight river segments suitable and, therefore, continue protection. Alternatives A and E would find no segments suitable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 55 percent (8,900 acres ) of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110295, Volume I--408 pages, Volume II--310 pages, Volume III--408 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615523; 15056-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615517; 15056-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615515; 15053-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of 17 million acres of land which includes 400,000 acres of surface lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. Like California as a whole, the planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except that it eliminates livestock grazing from the public lands where the Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program. Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives C and D protect the largest area through designation as areas of critical environmental concern, primarily to maintain and enhance biological resource values. Alternatives B, C, and D eliminate the only Back Country Byway from the decision area. Alternatives A and E continue the designation of the Chimney Peak Byway with the latter providing guidance that would improve opportunities and experiences along the route. Alternative B would find two segments of rivers suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The remaining six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternatives C and D would find all eight river segments suitable and, therefore, continue protection. Alternatives A and E would find no segments suitable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 55 percent (8,900 acres ) of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110295, Volume I--408 pages, Volume II--310 pages, Volume III--408 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615324; 15056-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615323; 15056-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Research+in+Higher+Education&rft.atitle=Can+College+Outreach+Programs+Improve+College+Readiness%3F+The+Case+of+the+College+Bound%2C+St.+Louis+Program&rft.au=Le%2C+Vi-nhuan%3BMariano%2C+Louis+T%3BFaxon-mills%2C+Susannah&rft.aulast=Le&rft.aufirst=Vi-nhuan&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=261&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+in+Higher+Education&rft.issn=03610365&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs11162-015-9385-8 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615320; 15056-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900615315; 15056-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900615315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900614699; 15056-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900614696; 15056-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900614669; 15056-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, AND SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 900614663; 15056-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new management plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County, San Francisco City and County, and San Mateo County, California is proposed. Established in 1972, GGNRA has been operating under its first general management plan (GMP), approved in 1980. Since the parks establishment, it has doubled in size and a better understanding of the parks natural and cultural resources and recreational uses has been gained. Muir Woods was declared a national monument in 1908 and is currently managed as part of GGNRA. The area covered by the proposed GMP is approximately 50,000 acres of land and water, including Alcatraz Island and the surrounding bay environment. Park lands in Marin County include Stinson Beach, Slide Ranch, Muir Beach, Lower Redwood Creek, Golden Gate Dairy, Tennessee Valley, Marin Headlands, and the offshore ocean environment. Park lands in San Francisco include Upper Fort Mason, China Beach, Lands End, Fort Miley, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and the offshore ocean and bay environments. Park lands in San Mateo County include the coastal area bluffs extending south from Fort Funston to Mussel Rock; Milagra Ridge; Shelldance Nursery Area; Sweeney Ridge, including Cattle Hill and Picardo Ranch; Mori Point; San Pedro Point; Devils Slide coastal area; Rancho Corral de Tierra; Montara Lighthouse; Phleger Estate; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Easements; and the offshore ocean environment. This draft EIS describes three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative which would continue existing park management. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and would engage the community and other potential visitors in the enjoyment, understanding, and stewardship of park resources and values. Park management would focus on ways to attract and welcome people, connect people with the resources, and promote understanding, enjoyment, preservation, and health. Alternative 2 would emphasize preserving, enhancing, and promoting the dynamic and interconnected coastal ecosystems in which marine resources are valued and prominently featured. Recreational and educational opportunities would allow visitors to learn about and enjoy the ocean and bay environments, and gain a better understanding of the regions international significance and history. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative for Alcatraz Island and Muir Woods National Monument, would place an emphasis on nationally important natural and cultural resources. The fundamental resources of each showcased site would be managed at the highest level of preservation to protect the resources in perpetuity and to promote appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of those resources. All other resources would be managed to complement the nationally significant resources and associated visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new management plan would articulate park management philosophy, provide the foundation for managing park partnerships and for coordinating and collaborating with adjacent public land managers, and provide a framework for continued public and partner stewardship of the park's resources for the next 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As an urban recreation area, large numbers of visitors at the GGNRA would continue to impact resources, including 32 species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, and 11 cultural landscapes are now listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110298, Volume I--405 pages, Volume II--420 pages, Volume III--192 pages, September 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Monuments KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - San Francisco Bay KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/900614663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+CITY+AND+COUNTY%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 67 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340884; 15046-8_0067 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 66 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340862; 15046-8_0066 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 76 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340856; 15046-8_0076 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 65 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340844; 15046-8_0065 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 64 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340829; 15046-8_0064 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 74 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340811; 15046-8_0074 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 62 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340795; 15046-8_0062 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 61 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340775; 15046-8_0061 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 60 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340757; 15046-8_0060 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 59 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340741; 15046-8_0059 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 58 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340724; 15046-8_0058 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 57 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340708; 15046-8_0057 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 56 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340697; 15046-8_0056 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 55 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340685; 15046-8_0055 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 53 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340660; 15046-8_0053 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 52 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340650; 15046-8_0052 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 51 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340637; 15046-8_0051 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 46 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340624; 15046-8_0046 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 45 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340612; 15046-8_0045 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 44 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340601; 15046-8_0044 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 22 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340589; 15046-8_0022 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 21 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340574; 15046-8_0021 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 73 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340529; 15046-8_0073 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 72 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340517; 15046-8_0072 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 71 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340504; 15046-8_0071 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 70 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340494; 15046-8_0070 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. AN - 897340219; 15040-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A revised draft general management plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Clayton and Allamakee Counties, northeastern Iowa is proposed. The national monument contains nationally significant archeological resources comprising one of the largest concentrations of Indian mounds in the United States, including some of the finest and best preserved examples of effigy mounds in their original forms. Land surrounding Effigy Mounds belongs to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Iowa, and private landowners. Land uses in the area include agriculture, rural development, resources management, recreation, and transportation. The monument currently comprises a total of 2,526 acres in the North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, and the Heritage Addition. The existing GMP for Effigy Mounds does not provide adequate management guidance in several key areas, including the 1,045-acre Heritage Addition which expanded the monuments land base by 70 percent and added several cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), a large portion of the monument would be zoned as backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect and share information on mound research and preservation. Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be primarily self-guiding on a variety of trail types in a quiet, contemplative setting to maintain an atmosphere of respect toward the sacred nature of the monument. Providing access to mounds that are in different conditions would allow an expansion of existing interpretive opportunities and an increased understanding of the monuments fundamental resources. In Alternative C, more of the monument would be placed in a discovery zone that would allow for more visitor amenities, while a research center would be developed outside of the monument. All of the alternatives would improve access to the South Unit by connecting the Yellow River bridge and trail to the trails in the South Unit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would clearly define the resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national monument for the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building and trail construction. There would be negligible to moderate adverse impacts to some cultural resources, but these would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. There would be a possible adverse impact to cultural landscapes from trail, parking area, and contact station construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110281, 268 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research Facilities KW - Trails KW - Effigy Mounds National Monument KW - Iowa KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, Iowa; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 69 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340162; 15046-8_0069 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 68 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340154; 15046-8_0068 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 84 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340111; 15046-8_0084 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 83 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340103; 15046-8_0083 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 82 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340095; 15046-8_0082 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 81 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340088; 15046-8_0081 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 80 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340069; 15046-8_0080 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 79 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340064; 15046-8_0079 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 78 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340058; 15046-8_0078 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 77 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897340053; 15046-8_0077 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 43 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339870; 15046-8_0043 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 41 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339863; 15046-8_0041 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 40 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339859; 15046-8_0040 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 39 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339856; 15046-8_0039 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 38 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339853; 15046-8_0038 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 37 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339849; 15046-8_0037 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 36 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339846; 15046-8_0036 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 35 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339841; 15046-8_0035 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 34 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339838; 15046-8_0034 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 32 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339831; 15046-8_0032 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339830; 15046-8_0019 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 18 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339828; 15046-8_0018 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 17 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339827; 15046-8_0017 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 16 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339825; 15046-8_0016 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 15 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339824; 15046-8_0015 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339821; 15046-8_0013 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339820; 15046-8_0012 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 11 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339818; 15046-8_0011 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339817; 15046-8_0010 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 9 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339816; 15046-8_0009 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339814; 15046-8_0008 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339813; 15046-8_0007 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339812; 15046-8_0006 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339810; 15046-8_0005 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 50 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339809; 15046-8_0050 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339808; 15046-8_0004 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 49 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339803; 15046-8_0049 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 48 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339797; 15046-8_0048 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 47 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339792; 15046-8_0047 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 24 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339782; 15046-8_0024 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 23 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339776; 15046-8_0023 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 30 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339684; 15046-8_0030 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 29 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339680; 15046-8_0029 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 28 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339675; 15046-8_0028 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 27 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339669; 15046-8_0027 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339663; 15046-8_0003 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339658; 15046-8_0002 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 84] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 897339651; 15046-8_0001 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 896392494; 15047 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project in Martin County, on the east coast of Florida is proposed. Martin County is located 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of Hutchinson Island which is separated from the mainland by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures along Martin Countys ocean front beaches which extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore of Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated at 2.4 to 4.0 million cubic yards (cy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and would involve the placement of 787,800 cy of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre offshore borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The cost of the 2012 renourishment phase is estimated at $10.1 million or $9.48 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but is likely to be unpractical due to transportation expense and logistical difficulties of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new source of beach-compatible sand would allow the shore protection project to continue. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0350D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110289, Final Supplemental EIS--284 pages, Appendices--1,449 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896392494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST, GARFIELD, IRON, KANE, PIUTE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16376233; 15046 JF - EPA number: 110288, Final EIS--936 pages and maps, Record of Decision--187 pages and maps, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance POSITIVE IMPACTS: The opening of new lease options in the DNF would respond to interest expressed by the oil and gas industry in leasing in the federal estate while protecting surface and subsurface natural resource values through appropriate lease terms and stipulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic exploration would result in some surface disturbance, temporary noise disturbances, and increased risk of infestation by invasive plants. Production field development would involve long-term surface disturbance due to land clearing for roads, pads, flow lines, storage tank batteries, and other facilities. Road building is the activity most likely to impact water and watershed resources and fisheries. Removal of topsoil and vegetation would impact habitat for wildlife and increase erosion potential. Oil and gas activities could degrade the visual quality of areas within and adjacent to DNF. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0393D, Volume 32, Number 4. UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+DIXIE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GARFIELD%2C+IRON%2C+KANE%2C+PIUTE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. AN - 16374063; 15040 AB - PURPOSE: A revised draft general management plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Clayton and Allamakee Counties, northeastern Iowa is proposed. The national monument contains nationally significant archeological resources comprising one of the largest concentrations of Indian mounds in the United States, including some of the finest and best preserved examples of effigy mounds in their original forms. Land surrounding Effigy Mounds belongs to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Iowa, and private landowners. Land uses in the area include agriculture, rural development, resources management, recreation, and transportation. The monument currently comprises a total of 2,526 acres in the North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, and the Heritage Addition. The existing GMP for Effigy Mounds does not provide adequate management guidance in several key areas, including the 1,045-acre Heritage Addition which expanded the monuments land base by 70 percent and added several cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), a large portion of the monument would be zoned as backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect and share information on mound research and preservation. Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be primarily self-guiding on a variety of trail types in a quiet, contemplative setting to maintain an atmosphere of respect toward the sacred nature of the monument. Providing access to mounds that are in different conditions would allow an expansion of existing interpretive opportunities and an increased understanding of the monuments fundamental resources. In Alternative C, more of the monument would be placed in a discovery zone that would allow for more visitor amenities, while a research center would be developed outside of the monument. All of the alternatives would improve access to the South Unit by connecting the Yellow River bridge and trail to the trails in the South Unit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would clearly define the resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national monument for the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from building and trail construction. There would be negligible to moderate adverse impacts to some cultural resources, but these would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. There would be a possible adverse impact to cultural landscapes from trail, parking area, and contact station construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110281, 268 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research Facilities KW - Trails KW - Effigy Mounds National Monument KW - Iowa KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, Iowa; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wherefore Art Thou Aggregate Resources for Highways? AN - 898999930 AB - According to USGS reports, production and use of aggregates in the United States declined during the economic downturn in 2008-2010. State and local DOTs need access to good-quality sources of virgin aggregates - sand, gravel, crushed gravel, and crushed stone - reclaimed asphalt pavement, recycled concrete aggregate, crushed rubble, reworked/rebound aggregates from pavement rehabilitation and full-depth reconstruction, and other alternative byproduct materials to support their highway programs. JF - Public Roads AU - Meininger, Richard C AU - Stokowski, Steven J AU - Langer, Bill, USGS Y1 - 2011///Sep/Oct PY - 2011 DA - Sep/Oct 2011 SP - 34 EP - 41 CY - Washington PB - Superintendent of Documents VL - 75 IS - 2 SN - 00333735 KW - Housing And Urban Planning KW - Roads & highways KW - Aggregate industry KW - Asphalt pavements KW - Concrete KW - Recycling KW - Research & development--R&D KW - Cement KW - Transportation planning KW - Data collection KW - Raw materials KW - Infrastructure KW - Industry analysis KW - Coastal plains UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898999930?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%3Asciencejournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Public+Roads&rft.atitle=Wherefore+Art+Thou+Aggregate+Resources+for+Highways%3F&rft.au=Meininger%2C+Richard+C%3BStokowski%2C+Steven+J%3BLanger%2C+Bill%2C+USGS&rft.aulast=Meininger&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=34&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Public+Roads&rft.issn=00333735&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central N1 - Copyright - Copyright Superintendent of Documents Sep/Oct 2011 N1 - Document feature - Photographs N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-29 N1 - CODEN - PUROAQ ER - TY - GEN T1 - CBP Office of International Affairs (INA) Mexico Customs Graduation Trip Report, CBP Canine Center, El Paso, TX, September 15-16, 2011 AN - 1679100635; MD01857 AB - Reports on visit to Mexico to participate in Mexican Customs officers' graduation from Customs and Border Protection canine training 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 - Dogs KW - Police training KW - State and official visits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679100635?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+Mexico+Customs+Graduation+Trip+Report%2C+CBP+Canine+Center%2C+El+Paso%2C+TX%2C+September+15-16%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=2011-09-01&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. Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit. Tax Administration Service. General Customs Administration N1 - Analyte descriptor - NSA document type: Report N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 37 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245944; 15036-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 36 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245940; 15036-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 35 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245936; 15036-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 34 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245931; 15036-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 896245856; 15038-9_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. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008 and 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. 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. This final revised 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 and full implementation is no longer feasible. 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 canceled. 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. 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: Construction would disturb benthic habitat and operational discharges would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality and could emit large amounts of potentially harmful pollutants. 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 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 abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110279, Volume I--590 pages, Volume II (Response to Comments)--767 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-041 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 - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/896245856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28FINAL+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+%28FINAL+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 - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. 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 51 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896245431; 15035-6_0051 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 - 51 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/896245431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 18 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245332; 15036-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 17 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245324; 15036-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 16 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245319; 15036-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 15 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896245100; 15036-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896245100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - 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 69 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896236779; 15035-6_0069 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 - 69 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/896236779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 28 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896235695; 15036-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 27 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896235682; 15036-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 26 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896235663; 15036-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 25 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896235645; 15036-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 24 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896235633; 15036-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896235633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - 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 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 86 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896232997; 15035-6_0086 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 - 86 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/896232997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 5 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896230838; 15036-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896230838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 23 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896229393; 15036-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 22 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896229366; 15036-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 21 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896229344; 15036-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 20 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896229326; 15036-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 4 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896229091; 15036-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896229091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - 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 106 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896220654; 15035-6_0106 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 - 106 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/896220654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 40 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215899; 15036-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 39 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215877; 15036-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 38 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215840; 15036-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 31 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215809; 15036-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 30 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215772; 15036-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 29 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215742; 15036-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 41 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215506; 15036-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 33 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215467; 15036-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 32 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896215428; 15036-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 896215134; 15037-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2-million-acre park and preserve includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve protects braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers, but is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdings and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails and recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the reserve but not on trails in the park. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both park and preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would include improvement of all nine trails. After improvements are completed, recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the preserve (Suslota, Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Until improvements are completed, recreational ORV use would only be permitted on trails in fair or better condition (Lost Creek and Trail Creek trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trails in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails with allowance for game retrieval. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under the preferred alternative, improved ORV access could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0409D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110278, 651 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896215134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. 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 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 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 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 896211699; 15038-9_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. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008 and 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. 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. This final revised 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 and full implementation is no longer feasible. 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 canceled. 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. 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: Construction would disturb benthic habitat and operational discharges would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality and could emit large amounts of potentially harmful pollutants. 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 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 abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110279, Volume I--590 pages, Volume II (Response to Comments)--767 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-041 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 - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/896211699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28FINAL+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+%28FINAL+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 - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 43 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896209425; 15036-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896209425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 42 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896209385; 15036-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896209385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 14 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192600; 15036-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 13 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192567; 15036-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 12 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192530; 15036-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 11 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192508; 15036-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 10 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192486; 15036-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 9 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192454; 15036-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 8 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192392; 15036-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 7 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896192351; 15036-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896192351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 3 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896191775; 15036-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 19 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896191744; 15036-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896191744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - 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 52 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896191303; 15035-6_0052 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 - 52 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/896191303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 896191045; 15038-9_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. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008 and 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. 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. This final revised 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 and full implementation is no longer feasible. 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 canceled. 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. 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: Construction would disturb benthic habitat and operational discharges would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality and could emit large amounts of potentially harmful pollutants. 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 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 abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110279, Volume I--590 pages, Volume II (Response to Comments)--767 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-041 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 - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/896191045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28FINAL+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+%28FINAL+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 - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 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 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 896190956; 15038-9_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. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008 and 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. 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. This final revised 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 and full implementation is no longer feasible. 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 canceled. 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. 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: Construction would disturb benthic habitat and operational discharges would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality and could emit large amounts of potentially harmful pollutants. 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 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 abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110279, Volume I--590 pages, Volume II (Response to Comments)--767 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-041 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 - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/896190956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28FINAL+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+%28FINAL+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 - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 2 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896190885; 15036-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 1 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896190853; 15036-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - 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 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). [Part 6 of 43] T2 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 896190679; 15036-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896190679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190653; 15035-6_0011 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 - 11 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/896190653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 122 of 138] T2 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 896190404; 15035-6_0122 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 - 122 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/896190404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 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 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 894610273; 15037 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2-million-acre park and preserve includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve protects braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers, but is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdings and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails and recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the reserve but not on trails in the park. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both park and preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would include improvement of all nine trails. After improvements are completed, recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the preserve (Suslota, Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Until improvements are completed, recreational ORV use would only be permitted on trails in fair or better condition (Lost Creek and Trail Creek trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trails in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails with allowance for game retrieval. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under the preferred alternative, improved ORV access could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0409D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110278, 651 pages and maps, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894610273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2007). AN - 894610271; 15036 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the land management plan for the San Juan Public Lands in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, Colorado is proposed. The 1.9-million-acre San Juan National Forest and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa field offices are managed under a combined partnership. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2007. This draft supplement is based on the same four alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue current management. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would maintain most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands while at the same time maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Alternative C would emphasize preserving the undeveloped character of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize actively managing lands to produce the highest amounts of commodity goods and services. A No Lease Alternative is also analyzed for the oil and gas leasing availability decision. This supplement addresses changed conditions used in the oil and gas leasing and development analysis including: the emergence of a gothic shale gas play (GSGP) area in southwestern Colorado identified as having high resource potential; the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which makes extraction of gas from shale formations possible and more economical; significant industry interest in leasing federal mineral estate within the GSGP area since the release of the draft EIS; and increased permitting activity on non-federal mineral estate lands within the area. BLM and Forest Service lands comprise 55 percent of the 646,403 acres of surface lands within the GSGP area. The results from recently completed air quality modeling based on new development projections are also disclosed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area while providing access to essential resources such as oil and gas. The vast majority of the GSGP area has a long history of multiple uses that are consistent with proposed leasing activity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would disturb soils, destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. The projected cumulative development for the Paradox Basin and the GSGP area would involve up to 1,144 wells, 573 miles of new access roads, and 5,623 total acres of disturbance. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0034D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110277, 156 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - San Juan National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894610271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; 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 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 16374016; 15038 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. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008 and 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. 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. This final revised 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 and full implementation is no longer feasible. 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 canceled. 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. 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: Construction would disturb benthic habitat and operational discharges would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction would affect marine mammals and could impact federally protected bird species. A VLOS, although unlikely, would present sustained and significant degradation of water quality and could emit large amounts of potentially harmful pollutants. 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 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 abstract of the original draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0586D, Volume 34, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110279, Volume I--590 pages, Volume II (Response to Comments)--767 pages, August 26, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-041 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 - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/16374016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28FINAL+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+%28FINAL+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 - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -