TY - JOUR T1 - Embracing student experience in inclusive design education through learner-centred instruction AN - 1814223880 AB - This paper explores the process and outcome of using learner-centred methods to develop students' empathic design abilities during an educational workshop on inclusive design. In the first section of the paper, we suggest the significance of incorporating inclusive design within the education of design disciplines. Then, we introduce a workshop on inclusive design awareness that architecture and interior design students participated, which applied various learner-centred methods. We discuss the process that incorporated project-based learning, role-playing/simulation and students' reflections and feedback on their experience. The workshop process, the student project experience and students' reflections on their learning indicate how multiple methods of learning engage students and enhance their empathic understanding so they can embrace differences and adopt a user-centred design approach. Based on the findings, we provide suggestions for similar educational events that can be applied in other disciplinary contexts. JF - International Journal of Inclusive Education AU - Altay, Burçak AU - Ballice, Gülnur AU - Bengisu, Ebru AU - Alkan-Korkmaz, Sevinç AU - Paykoç, Eda AD - Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey ; Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey ; Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey Y1 - 2016/11// PY - 2016 DA - Nov 2016 SP - 1123 EP - 1141 CY - London PB - Taylor & Francis Ltd. VL - 20 IS - 11 SN - 1360-3116 KW - Education KW - Learner-centred KW - design education KW - empathic design KW - inclusive education KW - Students KW - Architecture KW - Learning KW - Simulation KW - Teaching UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1814223880?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%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Inclusive+Education&rft.atitle=Embracing+student+experience+in+inclusive+design+education+through+learner-centred+instruction&rft.au=Altay%2C+Bur%C3%A7ak%3BBallice%2C+G%C3%BClnur%3BBengisu%2C+Ebru%3BAlkan-Korkmaz%2C+Sevin%C3%A7%3BPayko%C3%A7%2C+Eda&rft.aulast=Altay&rft.aufirst=Bur%C3%A7ak&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1123&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Inclusive+Education&rft.issn=13603116&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F13603116.2016.1155662 LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Copyright - © 2016 Taylor & Francis N1 - Last updated - 2016-08-26 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155662 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - What is a Meaningful Role? Accounting for Culture in Fish and Wildlife Management in Rural Alaska AN - 1837069662 AB - The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to provide a meaningful role for rural subsistence harvesters in management of fish and wildlife in Alaska. We constructed an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews with residents of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Stakeholders' perceptions of their roles and motivations to participate in collaborative management are linked to unseen and often ignored cultural features and differing worldviews that influence outcomes of collaboration. Agencies need to better understand Yup'ik preferences for working together and change their formats and methods of public engagement. More frequent and higher quality interactions among stakeholders in rural communities will create awareness of cultural differences. Improved awareness will allow managers to design and implement a process that is culturally appropriate and increase the meaningfulness of collaborative management. JF - Human Ecology AU - Brooks, Jeffrey James AU - Bartley, Kevin Andrew AD - Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Anchorage, AK, USA ; University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, USA ; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Anchorage, AK, USA Y1 - 2016/10// PY - 2016 DA - Oct 2016 SP - 517 EP - 531 CY - New York PB - Springer Science & Business Media VL - 44 IS - 5 SN - 0300-7839 KW - Anthropology KW - Cross-cultural communication KW - Iceberg metaphor KW - Public participation KW - Qualitative interpretation KW - Subsistence KW - Yup'ik worldview KW - Alaska KW - Crosscultural Differences KW - Rural Areas KW - Consciousness KW - Cooperation KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Values KW - Government Agencies KW - Management KW - Fishing KW - Interest Groups KW - Rural Communities KW - 2656:environmental interactions; environmental interactions KW - 1116:rural sociology and agriculture; rural sociology (village, agriculture) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1837069662?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%3Asocabs&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Human+Ecology&rft.atitle=What+is+a+Meaningful+Role%3F+Accounting+for+Culture+in+Fish+and+Wildlife+Management+in+Rural+Alaska&rft.au=Brooks%2C+Jeffrey+James%3BBartley%2C+Kevin+Andrew&rft.aulast=Brooks&rft.aufirst=Jeffrey&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=517&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Human+Ecology&rft.issn=03007839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10745-016-9850-9 LA - English DB - Sociological Abstracts N1 - Copyright - Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9850-9 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Large along-strike variations in the onset of Subandean exhumation; implications for Central Andean orogenic growth AN - 1832729798; 2016-090228 AB - Plate tectonics drives mountain building in general, but the space-time pattern and style of deformation is influenced by how climate, geodynamics, and basement structure modify the orogenic wedge. Growth of the Subandean thrust belt, which lies at the boundary between the arid, high-elevation Central Andean Plateau and its humid, low-elevation eastern foreland, figures prominently into debates of orogenic wedge evolution. We integrate new apatite and zircon (U-Th)/He thermochronometer data with previously published apatite fission-track data from samples collected along four Subandean structural cross-sections in Bolivia between 15 degrees and 20 degrees S. We interpret cooling ages vs. structural depth to indicate the onset of Subandean exhumation and signify the forward propagation of deformation. We find that Subandean growth is diachronous south (11 + or - 3 Ma) vs. north (6 + or - 2 Ma) of the Bolivian orocline and that Subandean exhumation magnitudes vary by more than a factor of two. Similar north-south contrasts are present in foreland deposition, hinterland erosion, and paleoclimate; these observations both corroborate diachronous orogenic growth and illuminate potential propagation mechanisms. Of particular interest is an abrupt shift to cooler, more arid conditions in the Altiplano hinterland that is diachronous in southern Bolivia (16-13 Ma) vs. northern Bolivia (10-7 Ma) and precedes the timing of Subandean propagation in each region. Others have interpreted the paleoclimate shift to reflect either rapid surface uplift due to lithosphere removal or an abrupt change in climate dynamics once orographic threshold elevations were exceeded. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and both would drive forward propagation of the orogenic wedge by augmenting the hinterland backstop, either through surface uplift or spatially variable erosion. In summary, we suggest that diachronous Subandean exhumation was driven by piecemeal hinterland uplift, orography, and the outward propagation of deformation. JF - Earth and Planetary Science Letters AU - Lease (USGS), Richard O AU - Ehlers, Todd A AU - Enkelmann, Eva Y1 - 2016/10/01/ PY - 2016 DA - 2016 Oct 01 SP - 62 EP - 76 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 451 SN - 0012-821X, 0012-821X KW - silicates KW - oroclines KW - erosion KW - uplifts KW - paleoclimatology KW - Bolivia KW - Cenozoic KW - (U-Th)/He KW - topography KW - orthosilicates KW - thermochronology KW - exhumation KW - tectonics KW - faults KW - Subandean Belt KW - zircon group KW - apatite KW - Andes KW - rainfall KW - zircon KW - phosphates KW - orogenic belts KW - deformation KW - Miocene KW - orogeny KW - nesosilicates KW - Tertiary KW - South America KW - geodynamics KW - thrust faults KW - Neogene KW - cross sections KW - 03:Geochronology KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832729798?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Earth+and+Planetary+Science+Letters&rft.atitle=Large+along-strike+variations+in+the+onset+of+Subandean+exhumation%3B+implications+for+Central+Andean+orogenic+growth&rft.au=Lease+%28USGS%29%2C+Richard+O%3BEhlers%2C+Todd+A%3BEnkelmann%2C+Eva&rft.aulast=Lease+%28USGS%29&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=451&rft.issue=&rft.spage=62&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Earth+and+Planetary+Science+Letters&rft.issn=0012821X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.epsl.2016.07.004 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0012821X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 120 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., 1 table, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendix N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-27 N1 - CODEN - EPSLA2 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - (U-Th)/He; Andes; apatite; Bolivia; Cenozoic; cross sections; deformation; erosion; exhumation; faults; geodynamics; Miocene; Neogene; nesosilicates; oroclines; orogenic belts; orogeny; orthosilicates; paleoclimatology; phosphates; rainfall; silicates; South America; Subandean Belt; tectonics; Tertiary; thermochronology; thrust faults; topography; uplifts; zircon; zircon group DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.07.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Carbon and oxygen isotopic composition of coal and carbon dioxide derived from laboratory coal combustion; a preliminary study AN - 1844920980; 2016-103549 AB - The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO (sub 2) ) in the atmosphere has dramatically increased from the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s to present levels exceeding 400 ppm. Carbon dioxide derived from fossil fuel combustion is a greenhouse gas and a major contributor to on-going climate change. Carbon and oxygen stable isotope geochemistry is a useful tool to help model and predict the contributions of anthropogenic sources of CO (sub 2) in the global carbon cycle. Surprisingly few studies have addressed the carbon and oxygen isotopic composition of CO (sub 2) derived from coal combustion. The goal of this study is to document the relationships between the carbon and oxygen isotope signatures of coal and signatures of the CO (sub 2) produced from laboratory coal combustion in atmospheric conditions. Six coal samples were selected that represent various geologic ages (Carboniferous to Tertiary) and coal ranks (lignite to bituminous). Duplicate splits of the six coal samples were ignited and partially combusted in the laboratory at atmospheric conditions. The resulting coal-combustion gases were collected and the molecular composition of the collected gases and isotopic analyses of delta (super 13) C of CO (sub 2) , delta (super 13) C of CH (sub 4) , and delta (super 18) O of CO (sub 2) were analysed by a commercial laboratory. Splits ( approximately 1 g) of the un-combusted dried ground coal samples were analyzed for delta (super 13) C and delta (super 18) O by the U.S. Geological Survey Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory. The major findings of this preliminary work indicate that the isotopic signatures of delta (super 13) C (relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite scale, VPDB) of CO (sub 2) resulting from coal combustion are similar to the delta (super 13) C (sub VPDB) signature of the bulk coal (-28.46 to -23.86 ppm) and are not similar to atmospheric delta (super 13) C (sub VPDB) of CO (sub 2) ( approximately -8 ppm, see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html). The delta (super 18) O values of bulk coal are strongly correlated to the coal dry ash yields and appear to have little or no influence on the delta (super 18) O values of CO (sub 2) resulting from coal combustion in open atmospheric conditions. There is a wide range of delta (super 13) C values of coal reported in the literature and the delta (super 13) C values from this study generally follow reported ranges for higher plants over geologic time. The values of delta (super 18) O (relative to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) of CO (sub 2) derived from atmospheric combustion of coal and other high-carbon fuels (peat and coal) range from +19.03 to +27.03 ppm and are similar to atmospheric oxygen delta (super 18) O (sub VSMOW) values which average +23.8 ppm. Further work is needed on a broader set of samples to better define the relationships between coal composition and combustion-derived gases. JF - International Journal of Coal Geology AU - Warwick (USGS), Peter D AU - Ruppert, Leslie F Y1 - 2016/09// PY - 2016 DA - September 2016 SP - 128 EP - 135 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 166 SN - 0166-5162, 0166-5162 KW - experimental studies KW - oxygen KW - isotopes KW - isotope ratios KW - C-13/C-12 KW - atmosphere KW - techniques KW - O-18/O-16 KW - combustion KW - analysis KW - stable isotopes KW - carbon dioxide KW - laboratory studies KW - sample preparation KW - sedimentary rocks KW - ash KW - coal KW - carbon KW - standard materials KW - greenhouse gases KW - instruments KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1844920980?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Coal+Geology&rft.atitle=Carbon+and+oxygen+isotopic+composition+of+coal+and+carbon+dioxide+derived+from+laboratory+coal+combustion%3B+a+preliminary+study&rft.au=Warwick+%28USGS%29%2C+Peter+D%3BRuppert%2C+Leslie+F&rft.aulast=Warwick+%28USGS%29&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.volume=166&rft.issue=&rft.spage=128&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Coal+Geology&rft.issn=01665162&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coal.2016.06.009 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01665162 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 32nd annual meeting of The Society for Organic Petrology N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-01 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analysis; ash; atmosphere; C-13/C-12; carbon; carbon dioxide; coal; combustion; experimental studies; greenhouse gases; instruments; isotope ratios; isotopes; laboratory studies; O-18/O-16; oxygen; sample preparation; sedimentary rocks; stable isotopes; standard materials; techniques DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2016.06.009 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Designing an Ageless Social Community: Adapting a New Urbanist Social Core to Suit Baby Boomers in Later Life AN - 1789185473 AB - Since 90% of older adults prefer aging in place (Wang, Shepley, & Rodiek, 2012), it is important that neighborhood design supports successful aging. Beyond basic needs, research indicates quality interaction is associated with positive health and well-being benefits, particularly for older adults. In this, design supporting social relationships plays an essential role. This study's purpose was to identify New Urbanist neighborhood and social space design attributes supporting older residents' physiological and social needs. This case study used keyword-in-context analysis with focus group interview data to identify domains supporting social interaction for residents aging in place including: location factors, social factors, design factors, and programmatic factors. JF - Journal of Housing for the Elderly AU - Campbell, Nichole AU - Kim, Daejin AD - Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA ; Department of Interior Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA ; Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA Y1 - 2016///Apr/Jun PY - 2016 DA - Apr/Jun 2016 SP - 156 EP - 174 CY - New York PB - Taylor & Francis Ltd. VL - 30 IS - 2 SN - 0276-3893 KW - Gerontology And Geriatrics KW - New Urbanism KW - Aging in Place KW - Social Spaces KW - Third Place KW - Traditional Neighborhood Design KW - Health KW - Needs KW - Aging KW - Social Interaction KW - Well Being KW - Elderly KW - Social Space KW - Quality of Health Care KW - Babies KW - Social relationships KW - Medical research KW - Social space KW - Neighbourhoods KW - Social interaction KW - Ageing KW - Older people KW - Wellbeing KW - Social factors KW - 2143:social problems and social welfare; social gerontology KW - 1218:urban sociology; urban sociology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1789185473?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%3Aassia&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Housing+for+the+Elderly&rft.atitle=Designing+an+Ageless+Social+Community%3A+Adapting+a+New+Urbanist+Social+Core+to+Suit+Baby+Boomers+in+Later+Life&rft.au=Campbell%2C+Nichole%3BKim%2C+Daejin&rft.aulast=Campbell&rft.aufirst=Nichole&rft.date=2016-04-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=156&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Housing+for+the+Elderly&rft.issn=02763893&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F02763893.2016.1162253 LA - English DB - Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Sociological Abstracts N1 - Copyright - © Taylor & Francis N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2016.1162253 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Preliminary results on the 2015 eruption of Wolf Volcano, Isabela Island, Galapagos; chronology, dispersion of the volcanic products, and insight into the eruptive dynamics AN - 1849299779; 2016-106081 AB - After 33 years of quiescence, Wolf volcano, located in the northernmost tip of Isabela Island (Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), started a new eruption on May 25, 2015. The first signs of activity were recorded at 5:50 UTC (23:50 on May 24, Local Time in Galapagos) by a seismic station installed on Fernandina island. The first visual observation was reported at 7:38 UTC (1:38 LT). Based on amateur film footage, the vent was a >800 m-long circumferential fissure that produced a >100 m-high lava curtain. The eruption also released a 15 km-high gas plume with a large amount of SO (sub 2) and minimal ash content. Lightning was observed in the plume but not near the vent. Due to complex wind directions at high altitude, the gas cloud drifted in all directions eventually coming toward the continent and producing an extremely small ashfall in Quito that was detected only through the use of homemade ashmeters. The ash sample included lava droplets, scoria, and one small fragment of reticulite, indicating high lava fountaining during the first days of the eruption. The active vents on the circumferential fissure, initially located on the SE side of the caldera outer rim, moved progressively northward, eventually extending for a total of 2 km. One week later on June 02, satellite imagery (OMI, GOME, MODIS) documented decreased volcanic activity, leaving two new lava fields covering over 17 km (super 2) on the SE (10 km-long and up to 2 km-wide) and E (7 km-long and up to 1 km-wide, reaching the sea) flanks of the volcano. Volcanic activity resumed on June 11, and on June 13 it shifted into the caldera, apparently emerging from a fissure close to the vent from the 1982 eruption, about 4 km W of the circumferential fissure. This new lava flow covered approximately 3.5 km (super 2) of the caldera floor. Finally, volcanic activity waned at the end of June and appeared to have ended by July 11, accounting for one of the largest eruptions in the Galapagos since 1968 based on remote sensing. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Wright (Y+USGS), Heather Michelle Nicholson AU - Bernard, Benjamin AU - Ramon, Patricio AU - Guevara, Alicia AU - Hidalgo, Silvana AU - Pacheco, Daniel Alejandro AU - Narvaez, Diego AU - Vasconez, Francisco AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2015/12// PY - 2015 DA - December 2015 SP - Abstract V31B EP - 3022 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2015 KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1849299779?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Preliminary+results+on+the+2015+eruption+of+Wolf+Volcano%2C+Isabela+Island%2C+Galapagos%3B+chronology%2C+dispersion+of+the+volcanic+products%2C+and+insight+into+the+eruptive+dynamics&rft.au=Wright+%28Y%2BUSGS%29%2C+Heather+Michelle+Nicholson%3BBernard%2C+Benjamin%3BRamon%2C+Patricio%3BGuevara%2C+Alicia%3BHidalgo%2C+Silvana%3BPacheco%2C+Daniel+Alejandro%3BNarvaez%2C+Diego%3BVasconez%2C+Francisco%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Wright+%28Y%2BUSGS%29&rft.aufirst=Heather+Michelle&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=2015&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2015 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-16 N1 - CODEN - #07548 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Invited Commentary: Discussion on a Hybrid Strategic Development and Prioritization Model for Information and Communication Technology Enhancement AN - 1701262465 JF - International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems AU - Lu, Wen-Yao AU - Lin, Ming-Che AU - Chen, Ting-Xu AD - Department of Interior Design, China University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan ; Department of Interior Design, China University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan Y1 - 2015/10// PY - 2015 DA - Oct 2015 SP - 91 EP - 93 CY - Hershey PB - IGI Global VL - 6 IS - 4 SN - 1947-9328 KW - Business And Economics--Management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1701262465?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%3Alisa&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Operations+Research+and+Information+Systems&rft.atitle=Invited+Commentary%3A+Discussion+on+a+Hybrid+Strategic+Development+and+Prioritization+Model+for+Information+and+Communication+Technology+Enhancement&rft.au=Lu%2C+Wen-Yao%3BLin%2C+Ming-Che%3BChen%2C+Ting-Xu&rft.aulast=Lu&rft.aufirst=Wen-Yao&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=91&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Operations+Research+and+Information+Systems&rft.issn=19479328&rft_id=info:doi/10.4018%2FIJORIS.2015100106 LA - English DB - Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA) N1 - Date revised - 2015-09-22 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJORIS.2015100106 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SHORTAGE POLICY, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1871525885; 16637 AB - PURPOSE: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential impacts of Central Valley Project (CVP) Municipal and Industrial Water Shortage Policy (M&I WSP) alternatives. The M&I WSP would be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to: define water shortage terms and conditions for applicable CVP water service contractors, as appropriate; determine the quantity of water made available to CVP water service contractors from the CVP that, together with the M&I water service contractors' drought water conservation measures and other non-CVP water supplies, would assist the M&I water service contractors in their efforts to protect public health and safety during severe or continuing droughts; and provide information to CVP water service contractors for their use in water supply planning and development of drought contingency plans. The alternatives evaluated in this EIS utilize different methodologies for allocating available CVP water supplies to CVP water service contractors during a Condition of Shortage. This EIS evaluates potential impacts of the M&I WSP over a 20-year period, 2010 through 2030. This EIS has been prepared according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the project alternatives on the physical, natural, and socioeconomic environment of the region are addressed. JF - EPA number: 150260, Final EIS, September 18, 2015 Y1 - 2015/09/18/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Sep 18 KW - Water KW - Water Supply KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Erosion KW - Soils KW - Air Quality KW - Fish KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Agriculture KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Recreation Resources KW - Flood Control KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-09-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+MUNICIPAL+AND+INDUSTRIAL+WATER+SHORTAGE+POLICY%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+MUNICIPAL+AND+INDUSTRIAL+WATER+SHORTAGE+POLICY%2C+SACRAMENTO%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 N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 18, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RASMUSSEN VALLEY MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 1871525877; 16640 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) analyzes impacts related to mining phosphate ore at the Rasmussen Valley Mine in Southeastern Idaho. The Proposed Action includes developing six mine pits, haul roads, water management structures, and overburden disposal areas. Use of the existing fertilizer plant would continue in Soda Springs. Alternatives to the Proposed Action are also analyzed and site-specific mitigation measures developed. At this time the BLM and USFS Preferred Alternative is the Rasmussen Collaborative Alternative (RCA) because of revisions to overburden storage, the haul road, and the cap and cover design that would reduce the impacts of the Proposed Action. JF - EPA number: 150263, Draft EIS, September 18, 2015 Y1 - 2015/09/18/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Sep 18 KW - Land Use KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Drainage KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Livestock KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Soils KW - Fisheries KW - Fish KW - Air Quality KW - Noise KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-09-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RASMUSSEN+VALLEY+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=RASMUSSEN+VALLEY+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 18, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2016 AND 2017, CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 241 AND 247, EASTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 226, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENT SUPPLEMENT OF JULY 2012) . AN - 1871525902; 16626 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses three proposed Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales: Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sales 241 and 247 and Eastern Planning Area (EPA) Lease Sale 226, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the CPA since publication of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2013a); and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2015-2017; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 235, 241, and 247, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (CPA 235/241/247 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2014). This Supplemental EIS also updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the EPA since publication of the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Five-Year Program EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c) and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2014 and 2016; Eastern Planning Area Lease Sales 225 and 226, Final Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 225/226 EIS) (USDOI, BOEM 2013b); and, due to the close proximity of the proposed EPA lease sale area to the CPA, incorporates by reference all of the relevant material in the EIS and Supplemental EISs that were prepared for the nearby or adjacent CPA and that are referenced above. This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a CPA proposed action and an EPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The proposed actions are considered to be major Federal actions requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposals. This document includes the purpose and background of a CPA and EPA proposed action, identification of the alternatives, description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of a CPA and EPA proposed action, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with a CPA and EPA proposed action are also analyzed. Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil spills), and potential impacts that might result if a CPA or EPA proposed action is adopted. Activities and disturbances associated with a CPA and EPA proposed action on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. JF - EPA number: 150249, Final Supplement EIS, September 4, 2015 Y1 - 2015/09/04/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Sep 04 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OCS%29+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2016+AND+2017%2C+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+241+AND+247%2C+EASTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+226%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%29+.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OCS%29+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2016+AND+2017%2C+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+241+AND+247%2C+EASTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+226%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%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, New Orleans, Louisiana N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 4, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 248 IN THE WESTERN PLANNING AREA OF THE GULF OF MEXICO (THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENT SUPPLEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16376163; 16622 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses one proposed Federal action: proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Lease Sale 248 in the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the Gulf of Mexico, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA since publication of the prior 2012-2017 Gulf of Mexico EISs: Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2013a); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2014-2016; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 238, 246, and 248, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2014); and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2015 and 2016; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 246 and 248, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 246/248 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2015). This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a WPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and if so, it was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The proposed action is considered to be a major Federal action requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposal. This Supplemental EIS is the final NEPA review conducted for proposed WPA Lease Sale 248. This document includes the purpose of and need for the WPA proposed action, identification of the alternatives, description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the WPA proposed action, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with the WPA proposed action are also analyzed. Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil spills), and potential impacts that might result if the WPA proposed action is adopted. Activities and disturbances associated with the WPA proposed action on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. JF - EPA number: 150245, Third Draft Supplement EIS, September 4, 2015 Y1 - 2015/09/04/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Sep 04 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Louisiana KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+248+IN+THE+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+OF+THE+GULF+OF+MEXICO+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%29.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+248+IN+THE+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+OF+THE+GULF+OF+MEXICO+%28THIRD+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%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, New Orleans, Louisiana N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 4, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / EAST EVERGLADES WILDERNESS STUDY, COLLIER, MIAMI-DADE, AND MONROE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 16377573; 16618 AB - PURPOSE: Everglades National Park was dedicated in 1947 with 460,000 acres. As a result of various boundary additions, the park now encompasses 1,509,000 acres, including the largest legislated wilderness area (1,296,500 acres) east of the Rocky Mountains. The last comprehensive effort for Everglades National Park was completed in 1979. Much has occurred since then patterns and types of visitor use have changed, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was approved, and in 1989 the East Everglades Addition (109,600 acres) was added to restore Northeast Shark River Slough and enhance freshwater flows from the north end of the park to Florida Bay. Recent studies have expanded the knowledge and understanding of the resources, resource threats, and visitor use in the park. This general management plan will provide updated management direction for the entire national park, including the East Everglades Addition. As part of the planning process for this general management plan, the National Park Service (NPS) has conducted extensive internal and external scoping to identify the planning issues and concerns that need to be addressed by the planning effort. The internal scoping and the issues have been reviewed and evaluated at multiple levels of management. Some of the recent issues identified through this scoping included potential impacts from climate change, storm surge, and sea level rise, and the cost and economic feasibility of new development at Everglades National Park. Alternatives were developed and revised to address these issues as well as remain focused on resource protection, visitor experience, and operational needs long considered part of this plan. The East Everglades Wilderness Study considerations in this plan provide a forum for evaluating lands within the East Everglades Addition for possible recommendation to Congress for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system. The wilderness study is included because of public interest and because combining the wilderness study with the general management plan saves time and money. Wilderness, which can be designated only by Congress, provides for permanent protection of lands in their natural condition, providing outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. This document presents and analyzes four alternative ways of managing Everglades National Park for the next 20 or more years-alternative 1 (no action), and three action alternatives, the NPS preferred alternative, alternative 2, and alternative 4. (Alternative 3 was dismissed from detailed analysis as explained later in this document). Alternative 1 (no action) provides a baseline for evaluating changes and impacts of the three action alternatives. No wilderness is proposed for the East Everglades Addition in alternative 1. The NPS preferred alternative would support restoration of natural systems while providing improved opportunities for quality visitor experiences. It proposes about 42,200, acres for designation as wilderness and about 43,100 acres for designation as potential wilderness within the East Everglades Addition. Alternative 2 would strive to maintain and enhance visitor opportunities and protect natural systems while preserving many traditional routes and ways of visitor access. It proposes 39,500 acres for designation as wilderness within the East Everglades Addition. Alternative 4 would provide a high level of support for protecting natural systems while improving opportunities for certain types of visitor activities. Alternative 4 would eliminate commercial airboat tours within the park. It proposes 42,700 acres for designation as wilderness and 59,400 acres for designation as potential wilderness within the East Everglades Addition. All four alternatives, including the no-action alternative, would enhance Flamingo Concession Services and facilities, but at a reduced level from what was described in the 2008 Commercial Services Plan. All of the action alternatives include construction of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas visitor facility at Gulf Coast, and each of these three alternatives would provide different new visitor opportunities. JF - EPA number: 150241, Final EIS, August 28, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/28/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 28 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+EAST+EVERGLADES+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+COLLIER%2C+MIAMI-DADE%2C+AND+MONROE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+EAST+EVERGLADES+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+COLLIER%2C+MIAMI-DADE%2C+AND+MONROE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 28, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COEUR ROCHESTER MINE PLAN OF OPERATIONS AMENDMENT 10 AND CLOSURE PLAN. AN - 1871525901; 16607 AB - PURPOSE: Coeur Rochester, Inc. (CRI), the operator of the Rochester and Packard mines, herein referred to as the CRI Mine, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coeur Mining Incorporated. In June 2014, CRI submitted a Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan #NVN-064629 Amendment (POA 10) to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Winnemucca District. The CRI Mine is in Pershing County, approximately 18 miles northeast of Lovelock, Nevada. It is in the Humboldt Mountain Range, at 4,960 to 7,300 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A paved county road provides year-round access to the mine. POA 10 would allow the expansion of existing mining operations reclamation and ultimate closure of the CRI Mine. The proposed expansion would extend the life of the project for approximately five to seven years, depending on market conditions and the price of silver. The site would be closed and reclaimed approximately five years after each mining and processing facility is closed. The proposed POA 10 area (the project area) encompasses, either partially or completely, Sections 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 28 North (T28N), Range 34 East (R34E), Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project area encompasses approximately 4,339 acres, 4,122 acres of which are on BLM-administered lands and 217 acres are on private lands owned or controlled by CRI. CRI proposes to expand the project area by 499 acres (371 acres on BLM-administered lands and 128 acres on private land). The proposed project area would include the authorized project area and portions of Sections 8 and 17, T28N, R34E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Because proposed mining activities are on BLM-administered lands, the BLMs review and approval is required. This is in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the surface management regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 3809, and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Based on a review of the proposed action, the BLM has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared in order to comply with requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and BLM policy and guidance. JF - EPA number: 150230, Draft EIS, August 21, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/21/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 21 KW - Land Use KW - Mines KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Waste Management KW - Fuel Storage KW - Water Quality KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Erosion Control KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Vegetation KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+ROCHESTER+MINE+PLAN+OF+OPERATIONS+AMENDMENT+10+AND+CLOSURE+PLAN.&rft.title=COEUR+ROCHESTER+MINE+PLAN+OF+OPERATIONS+AMENDMENT+10+AND+CLOSURE+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Helena, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOAB MASTER LEASING PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MOAB AND MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICES, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 1871525900; 16611 AB - PURPOSE: This Moab Master Leasing Plan and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices (MLP/Draft EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Canyon Country District. This document addresses the need for additional planning and analyses for considering new leasing of oil and gas and potash on about 785,000 acres of public lands within the Planning Area. The decisions from this planning process could amend the Moab and Monticello Resource Management Plans (RMPs) that were completed in 2008. The Planning Area covers about 785,000 acres in east-central Utah, encompassing west-central Grand County south of Interstate 70 as well as a portion of northern San Juan County. The western boundary is the Green River and the northeastern edge of Canyonlands National Park. To the south of Moab, the Planning Area includes lands between Canyonlands National Park and U.S. Highway 191. The Planning Area encompasses a mix of land uses including a variety of recreation uses, potash production, oil and gas development, and livestock grazing. Interest in oil, gas, and potash exploration and development is high, as evidenced by expressions of interest to lease oil and gas on 120,000 acres within the Planning Area as well as the submission of over 170 potash prospecting permit applications encompassing over 350,000 acres. The MLP process will provide additional planning and analyses prior to new leasing of oil and gas and potash within the Planning Area. Four management alternatives for the MLP/Draft EIS have been developed for consideration and analysis in the Draft EIS. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); oil, gas, and potash leasing and development could occur at the same time on the same tracts of land. Alternative B minimizes impacts to sensitive resources and recreational use by limiting oil and gas and potash leasing. Mineral leasing decisions are separated into Alternative B1 and Alternative B2. Alternative B1 minimizes impacts to sensitive resources by separating oil and gas leasing and development from potash leasing and development. Alternative B2 minimizes impacts to sensitive resources by only considering oil and gas leasing; no new potash leasing would occur. Alternative C emphasizes protection of sensitive resources and recreational uses over oil and gas leasing and development; no new potash leasing would occur. Alternative D is the BLMs Preferred Alternative and minimizes surface disturbance by separating oil and gas development from potash development while maximizing protection for BLM lands adjoining Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. The outcome of the MLP process will be to identify new leasing stipulations, establish best management practices, and to specify development constraints. Changes to the leasing stipulations would require amendments to the RMPs. JF - EPA number: 150234, Draft EIS, August 21, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/21/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 21 KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mineral Resources KW - Drilling KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Recreation KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Fisheries KW - Wetlands KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Environmental Justice KW - Utah KW - Arches National Park KW - Canyonlands National Park KW - Monticello Resource Management Area KW - Moab Resource Management Area KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968, as amended, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+MASTER+LEASING+PLAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+MOAB+AND+MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICES%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+MASTER+LEASING+PLAN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+MOAB+AND+MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICES%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH AND SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECTS, ELKO, EUREKA, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1871525895; 16598 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes potential impacts associated with Barrick Gold U.S. Inc's proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, in White Pine County, Nevada, on lands managed by the Ely District, Egan Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project lies within the Bald Mountain Mining District in the southern Ruby, Buck, Bald, and Little Bald mountains of northeastern Nevada, approximately 65 air miles northwest of Ely and 25 air miles northeast of Eureka, Nevada. The proposed project would expand existing gold mining operations to include the following activities: modification and development of open pits; modification and development of rock disposal areas; modification and development of heap leach facilities (HLFs) and associated process facilities; modification and development of power lines and substations; modification of existing support facilities and development of new support facilities; improvement to existing roads and rerouting of public access; continuation of exploration drilling activities within the proposed Plan of Operations (PoO) boundaries; development of a transportation utility corridor to connect the proposed South Operations Area (SOA) and North Operations Area (NOA) projects; modification of the Regional Exploration PoO boundary to remove overlap with the proposed NOA and SOA projects boundaries; and other administrative actions. The proposed project would create approximately 6,903 acres of surface disturbance on public land administered by the BLM. The proposed project would have a mine life of 20 years for mining and ore processing. Upon completion of mining activities, the majority of the operation would be reclaimed. Three alternatives in addition to the Proposed Action were analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS: the North and South Operations Area Facilities Reconfiguration Alternative, the North Operations Area Western Redbird Modification Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. The BLM is responsible for administering mineral rights access on certain federal lands as authorized by the General Mining Law of 1872. The BLM Egan Field Office has the responsibility and authority to manage the surface and subsurface resources on public lands located within the Egan Resource Area. The BLM must review the PoO to ensure use of public land in the Egan Resource Area is in conformance with BLM' s Surface Management Regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations 3809) and other applicable statues, including the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (as amended). JF - EPA number: 150221, Draft EIS, August 14, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/14/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 14 KW - Land Use KW - Mines KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Birds KW - Noise KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Paleontological Resources KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+AND+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECTS%2C+ELKO%2C+EUREKA%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+AND+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECTS%2C+ELKO%2C+EUREKA%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 14, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHASTA LAKE WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION, SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1871525890; 16599 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of the proposed action is to improve operational flexibility of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) watershed system to meet specified primary and secondary project objectives. Two primary project objectives (also referred to as planning objectives) and five secondary project objectives were developed for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (SLWRI): Increase the survival of anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento River, primarily upstream from Red Bluff Pumping Plant (RBPP); increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, M&I, and environmental purposes, to help meet current and future water demands, with a focus on enlarging Shasta Dam and Reservoir; conserve, restore, and enhance ecosystem resources in the Shasta Lake area and along the upper Sacramento River; reduce flood damage along the Sacramento River; develop additional hydropower generation capabilities at Shasta Dam; maintain and increase recreation opportunities at Shasta Lake, and maintain or improve water quality conditions in the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam and in the Delta. Primary project objectives are those which specific alternatives are formulated to address. The two primary project objectives are considered to have coequal priority, with each pursued to the maximum practicable extent without adversely affecting the other. Secondary project objectives are considered to the extent possible through pursuit of the primary project objectives. JF - EPA number: 150222, Final EIS, August 14, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/14/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Protection KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomics Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Shasta Lake KW - CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act of 2004, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871525890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHASTA+LAKE+WATER+RESOURCES+INVESTIGATION%2C+SHASTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SHASTA+LAKE+WATER+RESOURCES+INVESTIGATION%2C+SHASTA+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 N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 14, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COORDINATED LONG-TERM OPERATION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND STATE WATER PROJECT. AN - 1865501929; 16591 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of the action considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to continue the operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP), in coordination with operation of the State Water Project (SWP), for the authorized purposes, in a manner that: Is similar to historical operational parameters with certain modifications, is consistent with Federal Reclamation law; other Federal laws and regulations; Federal permits and licenses; and State of California water rights, permits, and licenses, and enables the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to satisfy their contractual obligations to the fullest extent possible. JF - EPA number: 150214, Draft EIS, August 7, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/07/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 07 KW - Water KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Precipitation (Meteorology) KW - Irrigation KW - Flood Control KW - Watersheds KW - Salinity KW - Hydrology KW - Power Plants KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Floodplains KW - Wildlife Habit KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Soils KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Agriculture KW - Vegetation KW - Land Use KW - Visual Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Public Health KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - California KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1865501929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COORDINATED+LONG-TERM+OPERATION+OF+THE+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+AND+STATE+WATER+PROJECT.&rft.title=COORDINATED+LONG-TERM+OPERATION+OF+THE+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+AND+STATE+WATER+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yreka, California N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONS WEST OF DEVERS UPGRADE PROJECT. AN - 1865501926; 16589 AB - PURPOSE: The Proposed Project would upgrade Southern California Edisons existing West of Devers system in a number of ways. The upgrades to the existing 220 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines would be the most visible components of the project. These upgrades would occur on approximately 30 miles of the Devers-El Casco 220 kV transmission line, 14 miles of the El Casco-San Bernardino line, 43 miles of the Devers-San Bernardino line, 45 miles of the Devers-Vista No. 1 and No. 2 lines, 3.5 miles of the Etiwanda-San Bernardino line, and 3.5 miles of the San Bernardino-Vista line. The Proposed Project would replace or upgrade the existing 220 kV transmission lines and structures between Devers, El Casco, San Bernardino, and Vista Substations to increase the system transfer capacity from 1,600 megawatts (MW) to 4,800 MW. JF - EPA number: 150212, Draft EIS, August 7, 2015 Y1 - 2015/08/07/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Aug 07 KW - Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Agriculture KW - Farmlands KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Soils KW - Land Use KW - Mineral Resources KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Traffic Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Water Supply KW - Relocation Plans KW - Fire Protection KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Executive Order 11990, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1865501926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISONS+WEST+OF+DEVERS+UPGRADE+PROJECT.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISONS+WEST+OF+DEVERS+UPGRADE+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Francisco, California N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-07 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - America's geologic heritage; an invitation to leadership AN - 1828845308; 2016-087828 JF - America's geologic heritage; an invitation to leadership Y1 - 2015/08// PY - 2015 DA - August 2015 SP - 60 PB - United States National Park Service, Denver, CO KW - United States KW - protection KW - educational resources KW - geologic sites KW - conservation KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1828845308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=America%27s+geologic+heritage%3B+an+invitation+to+leadership&rft.title=America%27s+geologic+heritage%3B+an+invitation+to+leadership&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. geol. sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - http://go.nps.gov/AmericasGeoheritage N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STREAM PROTECTION RULE. AN - 16382519; 16576 AB - PURPOSE: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on proposed revisions to regulations (at 30 CFR Chapter VII) for implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA or the Act) of 1977. The proposed revisions would better protect streams, fish, wildlife, and related environmental values from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations and provide mine operators with a regulatory framework to avoid water pollution and the long-term costs associated with water treatment, more completely implement the requirements of SMCRA, remedy deficiencies in existing rules, and remove obsolete or unneeded provisions from existing rules. The DEIS analyzes the proposed revisions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; the Council on Environmental Qualitys (CEQs) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508; and the U.S. Department of the Interiors NEPA regulations, 43 CFR Part 46. JF - EPA number: 150199, Draft EIS, July 24, 2015 Y1 - 2015/07/24/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jul 24 KW - Land Use KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Streams KW - Coal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Hydrology KW - Air Quality KW - Soils KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Public Health KW - Safety KW - Geology KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation KW - Visual Resources KW - Noise KW - Transportation KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Indian Reservations KW - United States KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Regulations KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington DC N1 - Date revised - 2017-02-05 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR BEAVER DAM WASH NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND RED CLIFFS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, AND DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE ST. GEORGE FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1863198211; 16570 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this planning process is to satisfy specific mandates from the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA) that directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop comprehensive plans for the long-term management of Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area (NCA) and Red Cliffs NCA. The legislation also required BLM to take actions and make land use allocations on public lands in Washington County that require the St. George Field Office Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP, approved in 1999, amended in 2001) be amended to address two planning issues. The three planning efforts were initiated concurrently, to facilitate the preparation of a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the two new land use plans and amending the current SGFO RMP. The Draft RMPs for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs describe four alternatives proposed for the long-term management of approximately 108,339 acres of public lands within the two NCAs. Planning issues addressed in these draft RMPs include the conservation, protection, and enhancement of the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources identified as the purposes for Congressional designation of the public lands as NCAs. The two issue Draft RMP Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP contains four alternatives that address the protection of priority biological conservation areas on public lands in Washington County mandated by OPLMA, either through the administrative designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or the identification of management actions developed to meet that goal where ACEC designation would not be warranted. The Draft RMP Amendment also proposes modifications to current area designations for motorized vehicle uses. The four alternatives proposed in the Draft NCA RMPs and Draft RMP Amendment include Alternative A, the No Action alternative that represents the continuation of current management practices, and Alternative B, the agency Preferred Alternative. The single Draft EIS prepared to support this planning process analyses the environmental consequences of implementing the Draft NCA RMPs and Draft RMP Amendment. JF - EPA number: 150193, Draft EIS, July 17, 2015 Y1 - 2015/07/17/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jul 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Vegetation KW - Air Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Soils KW - Fire Protection KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Recreation KW - Environmental Justice KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1863198211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-07-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+FOR+BEAVER+DAM+WASH+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+RED+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+AND+DRAFT+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+ST.+GEORGE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+FOR+BEAVER+DAM+WASH+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+AND+RED+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+AND+DRAFT+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+ST.+GEORGE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON+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, Cedar City, Utah N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 17, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING AMINOPYRALID, FLUROXYPYR, AND RIMSULFURON ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES. AN - 1837600943; 16549 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Bureau of Land Managements use of the herbicides aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron on the human and natural environment. These three herbicides would be added to the BLMs list of approved active ingredients and integrated into the vegetation management program that was analyzed in an earlier PEIS released in 2007. Alternatives analyzed in the PEIS include the No Action Alternative, or a continuation of use of 18 currently approved herbicides. In addition, three action alternatives were evaluated: the Preferred Alternative, which would allow the BLM to use aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron in addition to the currently approved herbicides; an alternative that would prohibit aerial spraying of the three new herbicides; and an alternative that would only allow the BLM to add the two new herbicides without acetolactate synthase-inhibiting active ingredients (aminopyralid and fluroxypyr). Under all alternatives (including the No Action Alternative), projected maximum total use of herbicides would be the same, at 932,000 acres annually. JF - EPA number: 150172, Draft EIS, June 19, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/19/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 19 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Vegetation KW - Herbicides KW - Biocontrol KW - Plant Control KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Land Use KW - Soils KW - Erosion KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Fire Prevention KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Livestock KW - Air Quality KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Visual Resources KW - Recreation KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Public Health KW - Alaska KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Nebraska KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - North Dakota KW - Montana KW - Oklahoma KW - Oregon KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1837600943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC N1 - Date revised - 2016-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 19, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-11-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM: MENDOTA POOL BYPASS AND REACH 2B IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16385983; 16545 AB - PURPOSE: The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is a comprehensive long-term effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River and restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river while reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts from Interim and Restoration flows. This Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R) documents the assessment of environmental effects of the implementation of the Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project (Project), a component of Phase 1 of the overall San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP). The SJRRP was established in late 2006 to implement the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement) in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), et al., v. Kirk Rodgers, et al. JF - EPA number: 150168, Draft EIS, June 19, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/19/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 19 KW - Water KW - Fisheries KW - Fish KW - Water Supply KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Floodplains KW - Conservation KW - Land Use KW - Hydrology KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Dams KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Soils KW - Flood Control KW - Wetlands KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation KW - Socioeconomics Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - San Joaquin River KW - California KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13112, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-06-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%3A+MENDOTA+POOL+BYPASS+AND+REACH+2B+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%3A+MENDOTA+POOL+BYPASS+AND+REACH+2B+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 19, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-11-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK. AN - 16384933; 16547 AB - PURPOSE: This draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes the resource conditions and visitor experience as they should exist at Fire Island National Seashore over the next 20 years. It presents three park-wide alternatives and two alternatives specific to the William Floyd Estate. One of which has been selected as the preferred option park-wide as well as one for the Floyd Estate. It also assesses the potential impacts of the alternatives on park resources, the visitor experience, park operations, and the surrounding area. JF - EPA number: 150170, Draft EIS, June 19, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/19/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Natural Resources KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Cultural Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wilderness KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Historic Sites KW - Water Resources KW - Coastal Zones KW - Vegetation KW - Land Use KW - Transportation KW - New York KW - Fire Island KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Patchogue, New York N1 - Date revised - 2016-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 19, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-11-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2011). AN - 16386728; 16541 AB - PURPOSE: This supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) analyzes and discloses the potential environmental effects of leasing and mining the coal reserves in the Alton Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tract encompassing approximately 3,576 acres of land in Kane County near the town of Alton. The SDEIS was prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in response to Alton Coal Developments LBA for federal coal, which would be recovered using primarily surface-mining methods. The Proposed Action would include approximately 3,576 acres, of which approximately 2,280 acres are federal surface and mineral estate and 1,296 acres are split estate (private surface estate and federal mineral estate). Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over approximately 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden is less than approximately 200 feet, and using underground methods where the depth of overburden exceeds approximately 200 feet. The choice of mining method, however, could vary from the 200-foot overburden threshold depending on the coal thickness, overburden type, overburden (highwall) stability, underground mining techniques available, operating and capital costs, and coal market economics. Approximately 2 million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal have occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a minimum 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. The proposed Alton Coal Tract would include centralized and dispersed facilities and the relocation of KFO Route 116. Under the Proposed Action, the tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to lease stipulations developed for the tract. The SDEIS also analyzes a No Action Alternative (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act) that would not authorize the leasing of the tract, and two action alternatives to the Proposed Action (Alternative C and Alternative K1). Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude a portion of the tract 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. Under Alternative K1, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude two portions of the tract: a portion near the town of Alton as well as a southern portion. Under Alternatives C and K1, the modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to lease stipulations developed for the tract. JF - EPA number: 150164, Draft Supplement EIS, June 12, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/12/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 12 KW - Energy 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 Survey 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/16386728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-06-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2011%29.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Knaub, Utah N1 - Date revised - 2016-10-17 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 12, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SODA MOUNTAIN SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16382303; 16540 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Proposed PA/FEIS/EIR) addresses a proposed United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as amended (CDCA Plan); a possible decision to issue a right-of-way (ROW) grant for construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a solar electricity generation facility on BLM-administered public land; and a possible County approval of a groundwater well permit. The enclosed Proposed PA/FEIS/EIR analyzes seven alternatives. The Proposed Action or Alternative A includes the BLMs amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant to the Applicants proposed of right-of-way (ROW) authorization for a 358 MW solar energy plant and related facilities, including rerouting of Rasor Road, on approximately 2,222 acres within an approximately 4,179-acre area of BLM-administered public land in San Bernardino County, California, and the County's approval of a groundwater well permit (permit). Alternative B includes the BLM's amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of ROW authorization to develop a 264 MW solar energy plant and related facilities, including rerouting of Rasor Road, on approximately 1,647 acres of public land within the proposed East and South Arrays, and County permit approval. Alternative C includes the BLM's amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of ROW authorization to develop a 298 MW solar energy plant and related facilities, including rerouting of Rasor Road, on approximately 1,823 acres of public land within the proposed North and South Arrays, and County permit approval. Alternative D includes the BLM's amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of ROW authorization to develop a 250 MW solar energy plant and related facilities on approximately 1,717 acres of public land in a configuration that would maintain Rasor Road in its existing location, and County permit approval. Alternative E, the No Action/No Project Alternative, includes no CDCA Plan Amendment, denial of the requested ROW grant, and denial of the County permit. Alternative F, the County No Project Alternative, includes the BLM's amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of ROW authorization to develop one of the solar plant sites described in Alternatives A through D, and County denial of the requested groundwater well permit. Alternative G includes no issuance of a ROW grant, no County permit approval, and a CDCA Plan Amendment identifying the requested ROW area as unsuitable for solar development. JF - EPA number: 150163, Final EIS, June 12, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/12/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 12 KW - Energy KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Electric Power KW - Electric Generators KW - Desert Land KW - Wells KW - Roads KW - Water Resources KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 N1 - Date revised - 2016-10-17 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 12, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1827891960; 16533 AB - PURPOSE: Biscayne National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-606), expanded in 1974 (Public Law 93-477), and redesignated as a national park and expanded again in 1980 (Public Law 96-287). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1983. Much has changed since 1983-the population near the park has greatly increased, visitor use patterns and types have changed, and people have brought new recreational activities into the park. Furthermore, studies since 1983 have enhanced the National Park Services understanding of resources, resource threats, and visitor use in the national park. Each of these changes has implications for how resources are managed and protected, how visitors access and use the park, and how the National Park Service (NPS) manages its operations. This general management plan will provide updated management direction for the entire park for the next 15 to 20 years. The National Park Service released a Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (2011 Draft Plan) to the public in August 2011. A key component of the agency-preferred alternative in the 2011 Draft Plan was inclusion of a marine reserve zone. The marine reserve zone was proposed as an area in the park where fishing of any kind would be prohibited, allowing a portion of the parks coral reef ecosystem to recover and offer visitors a high-quality visitor experience associated with a healthy, intact coral reef ecosystem. During the August 2011 public comment period, approximately 18,000 pieces of correspondence were received and more than 300 people attended three public meetings. A number of substantive comments were received that identified both positive and negative impacts related to the establishment of a marine reserve zone. In particular, individuals who fish, fishing and marine industry organizations, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (with whom the National Park Service consults regarding fishing management actions in the park) raised a number of significant issues about the NPS preferred alternative, including the marine reserve zone. The position of the State of Florida was that any consideration of a marine reserve zone could only occur after measurable management objectives have been clearly defined and less restrictive management measures have been appropriately implemented and evaluated in close coordination with other agencies and stakeholders. Based on the comments received, the National Park Service undertook an evaluation process to consider a number of management actions that could be used to achieve the goal of a healthier coral reef ecosystem in the park to provide a more enjoyable and diverse visitor experience, while protecting the natural and cultural resources of the park. Thus, two additional alternatives (alternatives 6 and 7) were developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and presented in the 2013 Supplemental Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (2013 Supplemental Plan) for public consideration. Alternatives 6 and 7 contained many of the same elements as the original agency preferred alternative (alternative 4), except instead of including a marine reserve zone, the alternatives included a new concept referred to as a special recreation zone. Some other comments submitted for the 2011 Draft Plan resulted in minor changes to the text of the 2013 Supplemental Plan and are reflected in the Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Following release of the 2013 Supplemental Plan, approximately 14,000 pieces of correspondence were received containing 1,800 comments. Many comments focused on the special recreation zone, and specifically on alternative 6, including concerns regarding proposed fishing and anchoring restrictions, administration of the special activity license fishing permit system, and the adaptive management strategy. Based on the few comments received regarding alternative 7, numerous comments requesting further clarification and an opportunity for additional civic engagement, the National Park Service held three more public workshops in September 2014. A number of substantive comments were received regarding the overall permitting approach proposed in alternative 6, the effectiveness of the special recreation zone, the ability of the National Park Service to enforce this zone, and the effects of a larger special recreation zone compared to the size of a marine reserve zone. The National Park Service considered public and agency comments and drafted alternative 8 (a hybrid of alternatives 4 and 6 and is the final NPS preferred alternative) to address some of those concerns. Presented here in this Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is the final NPS preferred alternative (alternative 8) as well as alternatives 2 through 5 from the 2011 Draft Plan and alternatives 6 and 7 from the 2013 Supplemental Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) consists of existing park management and trends and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The concept for park management under alternative 2 would emphasize the recreational use of the park while providing resource protection as governed by law, policy, or resource sensitivity. This concept would be accomplished by providing a high level of services, facilities, and access to specific areas of the park. The concept for park management under alternative 3 would allow all visitors a full range of visitor experiences throughout most of the park and would use a permit system to authorize a limited number of visitors to access some areas of the park. Management actions would provide strong natural and cultural resource protection and diverse visitor experiences. Alternative 4 would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Some areas would be reserved for focused types of visitor use. A key component of this alternative was a marine reserve zone where fishing would be prohibited to enhance the quality and type of visitor experience and improve the condition of coral reefs by increasing the reef's resiliency to other impacts. The concept for park management under alternative 5 would promote the protection of natural resources, including taking actions to optimize conditions for protection and restoration. A permit system would be used in some parts of the park to provide specific experiences. Similar to alternative 4, alternatives 6 and 7 would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Alternatives 6 and 7 include a special recreation zone that would be managed as part of an adaptive management strategy to achieve the goal of a healthier coral reef ecosystem within the zone to provide a more enjoyable and diverse visitor experience, including fishing. The final NPS preferred alternative (alternative 8) would support strong natural and cultural resources protection while providing improved opportunities for quality visitor experiences. This alternative is a hybrid of alternatives 4 and 6 and combines the no fishing marine reserve zone with other management zones described in alternative 6. The key impacts of implementing the no-action alternative (alternative 1) would be a continuation of existing impacts on natural and cultural resources, visitor experience, and park operations; including adverse effects on fisheries and some federally listed threatened and endangered species. The key impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be negligible to moderate adverse impacts on natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, mostly beneficial visitor experience impacts, adverse park operations impacts, and beneficial economic impacts. The key impacts of implementing alternative 3 would be approximately the same as for alternative 2. The key impacts of implementing alternative 4 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effects on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. The key impacts of implementing alternative 5 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and both beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. Alternatives 6 and 7 have similar impacts, but many of the adverse impacts on fisheries, submerged aquatic communities, and listed species would be reduced due to zoning changes including the provisions of the special recreation zone. Alternatives 6 and 7 would also have both beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience and adverse impacts on park operations. Alternative 8 would have beneficial impacts on natural resources, no adverse effects on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. JF - EPA number: 150156, Final EIS, June 5, 2015 Y1 - 2015/06/05/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jun 05 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1827891960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-06-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-10-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 5, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OREGON SUB-REGION GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. AN - 16388252; 16529 AB - PURPOSE: This proposed resource management plan amendment and final environmental impact statement (Proposed RMPA/Final EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with participation of 12 cooperating agencies. It describes and analyzes seven alternatives for managing approximately 12.7 million acres of BLM administered lands and approximately 14.1 million acres of BLM-administered federal mineral estate that may exist with other surface ownership, often referred to as split-estate lands. Surface estate and federal mineral estate is managed by four BLM district offices (Burns, Lakeview, Prineville, and Vale). The analysis area spans portions of eight eastern Oregon counties: Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, and Union. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (no action alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM RMPs, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternatives C and F describe management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the National Technical Team measures to Oregon and was the agencies preferred alternative in the Draft RMPA. Alternative E describes management actions taken from Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. The Proposed RMPA is largely based on Alternative D. The Proposed RMPA is not a final agency decision but instead is an indication of the agencys preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve the BLMs goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers public comments and the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for Oregon. Major planning issues addressed in the EIS seek to alleviate the threats identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Services Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team. These include vegetation management, wildland fire and fuels management, lands and realty actions, minerals, travel management, and grazing. JF - EPA number: 150152, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Oregon KW - Washington 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/16388252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OREGON+SUB-REGION+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=OREGON+SUB-REGION+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&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 N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WYOMING GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, ALBANY, CAMPBELL, CARBON, CONVERSE, CROOK, FREMONT, GOSHEN, LARAMIE, LINCOLN, NATRONA, NIOBARA, PLATTE, SUBLETTE, SWEETWATER, TETON, UNITA, AND WESTON COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16386103; 16524 AB - PURPOSE: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) with input from 26 cooperating agencies. This document is considering amendments to six BLM and three Forest Service LUPs to address management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in Wyoming. The final EIS describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on approximately 16 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands and approximately 23 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service LUPs, as amended. Alternative B is based on management actions from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C is based on management actions submitted by various groups during public scoping. Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat using ideas provided by scoping comments and input from Cooperating Agencies involved in the alternatives development process. The Proposed LUP Amendments incorporates the guidance from the Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 (12/27/2011) BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (WO IM No. 2012-044), the Wyoming Governors Executive Order 2011-5 (WY EO 2011-5), and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. This alternative emphasizes management of Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Major planning issues addressed include energy and minerals, lands and realty (including rights-of-way), wildfire, vegetation management (including invasive species and conifer encroachment), livestock grazing, recreation, travel management, and socioeconomics. JF - EPA number: 150147, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resource Management KW - Roads KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest KW - Medicine Bow National Forest KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland 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/16386103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WYOMING+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ALBANY%2C+CAMPBELL%2C+CARBON%2C+CONVERSE%2C+CROOK%2C+FREMONT%2C+GOSHEN%2C+LARAMIE%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NATRONA%2C+NIOBARA%2C+PLATTE%2C+SUBLETTE%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+TETON%2C+UNITA%2C+AND+WESTON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WYOMING+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ALBANY%2C+CAMPBELL%2C+CARBON%2C+CONVERSE%2C+CROOK%2C+FREMONT%2C+GOSHEN%2C+LARAMIE%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NATRONA%2C+NIOBARA%2C+PLATTE%2C+SUBLETTE%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+TETON%2C+UNITA%2C+AND+WESTON+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, Grand Junction, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BILLINGS AND POMPEYS PILLAR NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CARBON, GOLDEN VALLEY, MUSSELSHELL, STILLWATER, SWEETGRASS, WHEATLAND, AND YELLOWSTONE COUNTIES, AND PORTIONS OF BIG HORN COUNTY MONTANA AND PORTIONS OF BIG HORN COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16386061; 16519 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes four alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Billings Field Office located in south central Montana in Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone counties, Montana, and portions of Big Horn County, Montana, and portions of Big Horn County, Wyoming. These alternatives are Alternative A (continuation of current management or the No Action Alternative); Alternatives B and C, and Alternative D (Proposed Alternative). Major RMP issues include managing for desired plant communities; maintaining or improving wildlife and fisheries habitat and controlling invasive species; conservation and recovery of threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species; identifying availability of public lands for commercial activities and managing commercial activities while protecting the integrity of other resources; managing recreation activities to meet public demand while protecting natural and cultural resources and providing for visitor safety; resolving conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses and addressing effects to resources from motorized use; identifying areas requiring special management and providing management direction for those areas; addressing social and economic conditions; protecting the cultural and historic values at Pompeys Pillar National Monument; and managing the recreation and visitor services at Pompeys Pillar National Monument. The Alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve goals and desired future conditions for the Billings Field Office and Pompeys Pillar National Monument. JF - EPA number: 150142, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wilderness Habitat KW - Montana KW - Pompeys Pillar National Monument 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/16386061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BILLINGS+AND+POMPEYS+PILLAR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON%2C+GOLDEN+VALLEY%2C+MUSSELSHELL%2C+STILLWATER%2C+SWEETGRASS%2C+WHEATLAND%2C+AND+YELLOWSTONE+COUNTIES%2C+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+COUNTY+MONTANA+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BILLINGS+AND+POMPEYS+PILLAR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON%2C+GOLDEN+VALLEY%2C+MUSSELSHELL%2C+STILLWATER%2C+SWEETGRASS%2C+WHEATLAND%2C+AND+YELLOWSTONE+COUNTIES%2C+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+COUNTY+MONTANA+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IDAHO AND SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, MONTANA, IDAHO, AND UTAH. AN - 16384866; 16522 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) with input from 26 cooperating agencies. This document is considering amendments to 26 BLM and 8 Forest Service land use plans to address management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in Idaho and portions of Montana and Utah. The Proposed LUPA and Final EIS describe and analyzes alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on approximately 9.2 million acres of BLM-administered lands and 1.9 million acres of National Forest System lands. Major planning issues addressed include energy and minerals, lands and realty (including rights-of-way), wildfire, vegetation management (including invasive species and conifer encroachment), livestock grazing, recreation and travel management, and socioeconomics. To assist the agencies decision makers and the public in focusing on appropriate solutions to the planning issues, the Final EIS considers 7 alternative LUPAs. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service land use plans, as amended. Alternative B is based on management actions from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C is based on management actions submitted by various groups during public scoping. Alternative D was developed by the agencies interdisciplinary team to address local ecological site variability and address conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in context with other competing human interests. Alternative E is based on the State of Idahos Governors Alternative, developed from recommendations by the State of Idahos Greater Sage-Grouse Task Force. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative F was derived from individual and conservation group scoping comments. The Proposed Plan is a mix of management actions selected from the range of alternatives in the Draft LUPA/EIS and is based on best science, public scoping comments, public comments on the Draft LUPA/EIS and internal agency discussion. Alternatives D and E were the agencies co-preferred alternatives in the Draft EIS. JF - EPA number: 150145, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Idaho KW - Utah KW - Sawtooth 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/16384866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IDAHO+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+MONTANA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+MONTANA%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+UTAH.&rft.title=IDAHO+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+MONTANA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+MONTANA%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE PLANNING AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CAMPBELL, JOHNSON, AND SHERIDAN COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16384844; 16516 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the BLM, within the Buffalo planning area. The planning area is located in north-central Wyoming and consists of approximately 7.4 million acres of federal, state, and private land. Within the planning area, the BLM administers approximately 780,000 acres of surface lands and 4.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. BLM-administered lands within the planning area are currently managed according to the 1985 Buffalo RMP as updated by the 2001 Buffalo RMP Update and amended by the 2003 RMP Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. When approved, this RMP and EIS will replace these existing plans. As part of the RMP revision process, the BLM conducted a scoping period to solicit input from the public and interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues and impacts to be addressed in the Draft RMP and EIS. Planning issues identified for this RMP revision focus on soils and watershed management, energy and minerals management, fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, cultural and paleontological resources, management of visual resources, land ownership adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions. The Draft RMP and EIS presented alternatives A through D. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the existing RMP, as amended. Alternative B emphasizes the greatest protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for limited development. Alternative C emphasizes resource development, while limiting protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D balances protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for sustainable development. After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft RMP and EIS, adjustments and clarifications have been made to the document, including Alternative D. As modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. JF - EPA number: 150139, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management 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/16384844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUFFALO+FIELD+OFFICE+PLANNING+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CAMPBELL%2C+JOHNSON%2C+AND+SHERIDAN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BUFFALO+FIELD+OFFICE+PLANNING+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CAMPBELL%2C+JOHNSON%2C+AND+SHERIDAN+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, Buffalo, Wyoming N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH DAKOTA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BOWMAN COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16384202; 16520 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with assistance from the following cooperating agencies: North Dakota Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bowman County Commissioners, and Bowman-Slope Conservation District. The Final EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, which address future management of approximately 30,030 acres of federal surface and 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate in southwestern North Dakota administered by the BLMs North Dakota Field Office (NDFO). Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of BLM-administered lands and resources would continue to be managed under the North Dakota RMP, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the NTT measures to North Dakota and was the BLMs preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The Proposed RMPA is largely based on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The Proposed RMPA is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencys preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers public comments and the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for the North Dakota Field Office. Major planning issues addressed include realty actions, oil and gas, minerals, travel management, grazing, and fuels management. JF - EPA number: 150143, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vegetation KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - North Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+DAKOTA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BOWMAN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+DAKOTA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BOWMAN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UTAH GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 16382219; 16526 AB - PURPOSE: This proposed land use plan amendment and final environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service with input from 28 cooperating agencies/entities. The EIS considers amending 14 BLM and 6 Forest Service land use plans. It describes and analyzes six alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat on approximately 3.4 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in Utah and southwestern Wyoming, as well as approximately 0.7 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate beneath non-federal surface ownership in Utah. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service land use plans, as amended. Alternative B is based on management actions from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C is based on management actions submitted by various groups during public scoping. Alternative D was developed by the agencies interdisciplinary team to address local ecological site variability and address conservation of GRSG in context with other competing human interests. Alternative E is based on the State of Utah's Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah and the State of Wyoming Governors Executive Orders 2011-05 and 2013-3. The Proposed Plan is based on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS, but it includes elements of the other alternatives from the Draft EIS. The Proposed Plan represents the agencies proposed management approach, it reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM and Forest Service goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, and addresses the key planning issues. The Proposed Plan provides consistent GRSG habitat management across the range by focusing on a landscape-scale approach to conserving GRSG and its habitat through minimizing additional surface disturbance, improving GRSG habitat condition, and reducing the threat of fire to GRSG habitat. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal to conserve, enhance, and restore the habitats upon which GRSG populations in the Utah Sub-region depend. Major planning issues addressed include energy and minerals, lands and realty (including rights-of-way), wildfire, vegetation management (including invasive species and conifer encroachment), livestock grazing, recreation and travel management, and socioeconomics. JF - EPA number: 150149, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 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/16382219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UTAH+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=UTAH+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST COLORADO GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. AN - 16381110; 16523 AB - PURPOSE: This proposed land use plan amendment and final environmental impact statement (Proposed LUPA/Final EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) with assistance from 22 cooperating agencies. It describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing approximately 1.7 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands and approximately 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate that may lie beneath other surface ownership. Surface estate and federal mineral estate is managed by five BLM field offices (Colorado River Valley, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Little Snake, and White River), which make up the BLM Colorado Northwest District, and one national forest (Routt). The analysis area spans portions of 10 northwest Colorado counties: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (no action alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM RMPs and Forest Service land and resource management plan, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the National Technical Team measures to Northwest Colorado and was the agencies preferred alternative in the Draft LUPA. The Proposed LUPA consists of a combination of Alternatives A, B, C, and D. The Proposed LUPA is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencies preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM and Forest Service goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers public comments and the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM and Forest Service specialists. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for the BLM Colorado Northwest District and the Routt National Forest. Major planning issues addressed include realty actions, oil and gas, minerals, travel management, grazing, and fuels management. JF - EPA number: 150146, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resource Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Routt 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/16381110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+COLORADO+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+COLORADO+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILES CITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CARTER, CUSTER, DANIELS, DAWSON, FALLON, GARFIELD, MCCONE, POWDER RIVER, PRAIRIE, RICHLAND, ROOSEVELT, ROSEBUD, SHERIDAN, TREASURE, WILCOX COUNTIES AND PORTIONS OF BIG HORN AND VALLEY COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 16381069; 16517 AB - PURPOSE: The Miles City Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing the public lands and resources in the planning area. The planning area consists of BLM-administered lands and minerals in eastern Montana in Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, and Wibaux counties and portions of Big Horn and Valley counties. To help the agency decisionmaker, cooperating agencies, and the public focus on appropriate solutions to planning issues, the PRMP/FEIS considers five alternatives. Alternative A continues current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the two existing RMPs, Big Dry and Powder River, as amended. Alternative B emphasizes protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources while providing for the lowest level of development. Alternative C emphasizes resource development while protecting physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D maximizes revenue and economic opportunities through natural resource development while meeting legal, environmental, and cultural requirements. Alternative E is the BLMs PRMP/FEIS, which is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencys preference for management of the public land and minerals. Summary of major RMP issues includes management of energy development; wildlife habitat management, including sage-grouse; management of special designation areas, including areas of critical environmental concern; special recreation management areas; management of lands with wilderness characteristics and livestock grazing. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve goals and desired future conditions for the Miles City Field Office. When completed, the record of decision for the RMP will provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing public resources and allowable uses on BLM-administered lands in the Miles City Field Office. JF - EPA number: 150140, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILES+CITY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARTER%2C+CUSTER%2C+DANIELS%2C+DAWSON%2C+FALLON%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCONE%2C+POWDER+RIVER%2C+PRAIRIE%2C+RICHLAND%2C+ROOSEVELT%2C+ROSEBUD%2C+SHERIDAN%2C+TREASURE%2C+WILCOX+COUNTIES+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+AND+VALLEY+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MILES+CITY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARTER%2C+CUSTER%2C+DANIELS%2C+DAWSON%2C+FALLON%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCONE%2C+POWDER+RIVER%2C+PRAIRIE%2C+RICHLAND%2C+ROOSEVELT%2C+ROSEBUD%2C+SHERIDAN%2C+TREASURE%2C+WILCOX+COUNTIES+AND+PORTIONS+OF+BIG+HORN+AND+VALLEY+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles City, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEVADA AND NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, NEVADA, CALIFORNIA AND OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16377380; 16525 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service with assistance from 24 cooperating agencies/entities. It describes and analyzes seven alternatives for managing Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in Nevada and Northeastern California. Federal lands in the planning are managed by five Nevada BLM district offices (Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca), three California BLM field offices (Alturas, Eagle Lakes, and Surprise), two Idaho BLM field offices (Jarbidge and Bruneau) via an MOU, and one national forest (Humboldt-Toiyabe). The sub-regional planning area spans portions of 16 Nevada counties, four California Counties, and one Idaho County (Owyhee). Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service land use plans, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D was the agencies preferred alternative in the Draft EIS and describes management actions developed by adapting the National Technical Team measures to the Nevada and Northeastern California sub-region. Alternative E is based on the State of Nevadas Conservation Plan for GRSG and would apply to lands within Nevada only. Alternative F describes management actions submitted by individuals and conservation groups. The Proposed Plan is a variation of Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS, and includes elements of other alternatives. The Proposed Plan represents the agencies proposed management approach, it reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM and Forest Service goals and policies, meet the purpose and need, and address the key planning issues. It also considers public comments received on the Draft EIS and incorporates many of the recommendations provided by cooperating agencies. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal to conserve, enhance, and restore the habitats upon which GRSG populations in the Nevada and Northeastern California sub-region depend. Major planning issues addressed in the document correspond with and seek to alleviate the threats identified in a report by the US Fish and Wildlife Services Sage-Grouse Conservation Objective Team; these include wildland fire management, vegetation management, livestock grazing, and lands and realty action. JF - EPA number: 150148, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Idaho KW - Humboldt-Toiyabe 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/16377380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEVADA+AND+NORTHEASTERN+CALIFORNIA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+NEVADA%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=NEVADA+AND+NORTHEASTERN+CALIFORNIA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+NEVADA%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKLE COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16375917; 16527 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers in the Bighorn Basin in northwestern Wyoming. The Draft RMP and Draft EIS were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April 22, 2011). In July 2012, the BLM Rocky Mountain Regional Interdisciplinary Team identified the need to prepare a Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS (the Supplement) to consider incorporation of proposed management actions in designated greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs), and to thoroughly consider the conservation measures identified in the Greater Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011), as referenced in BLM IM No 2012-044 (BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy). The Supplement described and analyzed two additional alternatives (E and F) to address these issues. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS integrate content from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and the Supplement for the BLM Cody Field Office and BLM Worland Field Office (the Planning Area). The Planning Area is located in north-central Wyoming, and comprises approximately 5.6 million acres of land in Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties. Within the Planning Area, the BLM administers approximately 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. The BLM is revising the three existing plans (the Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs) under which the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices operate to address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred during the approximately 20 years since the Records of Decision for the three existing plans were signed. The Draft RMP and Draft EIS analyzed alternatives A through D, representing complete land use plans for managing the Planning Area. The Supplement analyzed management under Alternative E, which is the same as Alternative B, except it designates Key Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse as the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental Concern); and management under Alternative F, which is the same as under Alternative D, except it designates PHMAs for greater sage-grouse as the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs ACEC. The BLM analyzed ACEC designations for greater sage-grouse priority habitat because this resource was found to meet the relevance and importance criteria that require its consideration as an ACEC. After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and Supplement, adjustments and clarifications have been made to the document, including Alternative D. As modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. JF - EPA number: 150150, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKLE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKLE+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, Worland, Wyoming N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, JUDITH BASIS, CHOUTEAU AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 16375886; 16521 AB - PURPOSE: The Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with assistance from the following cooperating agencies: US Fish and Wildlife Service; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Lewis and Clark National Forest; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fergus County; Judith Basin County; Petroleum County; Petroleum County Conservation District; Indian Butte Cooperative State Grazing District (CSGD); Winnett CSGD; and Chain Buttes CSGD. The Final EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of approximately 345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface and 639,927 acres of federal mineral estate in central Montana administered by the BLMs Lewistown Field Office (LFO). Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of BLM-administered lands and resources would continue to be managed under the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters RMPs, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the NTT measures to Lewistown Field Office and was the BLMs preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The Proposed RMPA is largely based on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The Proposed RMPA is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencies preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers public comments and the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for the Lewistown Field Office. Major planning issues addressed include realty actions, oil and gas, minerals, travel management, grazing, and fuels management. JF - EPA number: 150144, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Mineral Resources KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Montana KW - Lewis and Clark National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEWISTOWN+FIELD+OFFICE+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+JUDITH+BASIS%2C+CHOUTEAU+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=LEWISTOWN+FIELD+OFFICE+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+JUDITH+BASIS%2C+CHOUTEAU+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DAKOTA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARDING, BUTTE, LAWRENCE, PENNINGTON, CUSTER, FALL RIVER, PERKINS, MEADE, ZIEBACH, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16375240; 16518 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), South Dakota Field Office. The planning area for the South Dakota Field Office and this Proposed RMP/Final EIS covers the entire state of South Dakota, which includes approximately 49.3 million acres. Within the planning area, the BLM administers about 274,000 acres of public land surface estate. The majority of BLM- administered surface estate is located in Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Pennington, Custer, Fall River, Perkins, Meade, Ziebach, and Jackson counties. The BLM manages approximately 1.7 million acres of federal mineral estate in 37 counties in South Dakota. Over 99 percent of the BLM-administered surface and mineral estate in the planning area is located in western South Dakota. The South Dakota Proposed RMP/Final EIS would revise the South Dakota RMP (1986), Miles City Oil and Gas EIS (1994), and the Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC Plan (1996.) As part of the RMP revision process, the BLM conducted scoping to solicit input from the public and interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues and impacts and addressed them in the Draft RMP/EIS. Planning issues identified for this RMP/EIS include energy development, vegetation management, wildlife and special status species habitat, travel management and access, commercial uses, visual resource management, and climate change. The Draft RMP/EIS was released for public comment on June 14, 2013. BLM used the comments that were received on the Draft RMP/EIS to develop the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS considers four alternatives. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the existing management plans and guidance. Alternative B emphasizes resource development, while limiting protective management of resources. Alternative C emphasizes the greatest protection of resources, while still providing for use of resources. Alternative D is the BLMs Proposed Plan and reflects the best combination of actions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. JF - EPA number: 150141, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wilderness Habitat KW - South Dakota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DAKOTA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARDING%2C+BUTTE%2C+LAWRENCE%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+PERKINS%2C+MEADE%2C+ZIEBACH%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DAKOTA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARDING%2C+BUTTE%2C+LAWRENCE%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+PERKINS%2C+MEADE%2C+ZIEBACH%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Belle Fourche, South Dakota N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HILINE DISTRICT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GLACIER, TOOLE, LIBERTY, CHOUTEAU, HILL, BLAINE, PHILLIPS, AND VALLEY COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 16375193; 16515 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing public lands and federal minerals managed by the Bureau of Land Management HiLine District in Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole, and Valley Counties in northern Montana. The HiLine District includes about 2.4 million acres of BLM land and 3.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. The five alternatives are: Alternative A (current management or the no action alternative), Alternatives B, C, D, and Alternative E (the preferred alternative). The alternatives address the following eleven planning issues: renewable and nonrenewable energy, land ownership adjustment, healthy ecosystems and multiple use, cultural and paleontological resources, motorized travel, access, wildlife habitat, special designations, fire, social and economic conditions, and wilderness characteristics. JF - EPA number: 150138, Final EIS, May 29, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/29/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 29 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Employment KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HILINE+DISTRICT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GLACIER%2C+TOOLE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+HILL%2C+BLAINE%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+AND+VALLEY+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=HILINE+DISTRICT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GLACIER%2C+TOOLE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+HILL%2C+BLAINE%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+AND+VALLEY+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Havre, Montana N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-28 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM POOL RAISE PROJECT: A COMPONENT OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16384077; 16507 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Cle Elum Pool Raise Project was prepared jointly by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and Washington State Department of Ecology. Reclamation and Ecology are proposing this project as part of implementation of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (Integrated Plan). This FEIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives: Alternative 2-Additional Storage Capacity for Instream Flow with Rock Shoreline Protection; Alternative 3-Additional Storage Capacity for Instream Flow with Hybrid Shoreline Protection; Alternative 4-Additional Storage Capacity for Total Water Supply Available (TWSA) with Rock Shoreline Protection; and Alternative 5-Additional Storage Capacity for TWSA with Hybrid Shoreline Protection. Reclamation and Ecology have identified Alternative-Additional Storage Capacity for Instream Flow with Hybrid Shoreline Protection as the Preferred Alternative. JF - EPA number: 150130, Final EIS, May 15, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/15/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 15 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Noise KW - Wetlands KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation KW - Fish KW - Land Use KW - Transportation KW - Recreation KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Clean Water Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+POOL+RAISE+PROJECT%3A+A+COMPONENT+OF+THE+YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+POOL+RAISE+PROJECT%3A+A+COMPONENT+OF+THE+YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-09 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AIYA SOLAR PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16382133; 16506 AB - PURPOSE: The Applicant proposes to construct, operate, and maintain the Aiya Solar Project and associated infrastructure (the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would generate electricity using PV technology and would generate up 100 megawatts (MW) of energy. The primary purpose and needs for the Proposed Project are to: create an economic development opportunity for the Tribe by providing a long-term economically viable revenue source (lease income) and creating new jobs and employment opportunities for Tribal members; and develop clean renewable electricity generation from the Tribes solar resources that can be efficiently connected to the regional grid that would assist the Federal Government, the State of Nevada, and neighboring states meet their renewable energy goals. The Proposed Project would also help meet the goals of the Federal Government to eliminate or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promote the deployment of renewable energy technologies. The Tribe identified the Proposed Project as a viable opportunity to meet its economic development goarjls, because the lease would provide much needed revenue to the Tribe while occupying a small portion of the Reservation (1.5 percent). In addition, construction and operation of the Project would afford employment opportunity to tribal members. The Proposed Project would also be consistent with the Tribe's tradition of respect for the land and would fulfill the purposes for which the 70,000 acres were restored to the Tribe by the Federal Government in 1980 (Moapa Paiutes, n.d.).The use of the Tribes water by the Proposed Project would help the Tribe affirm and sustain its rights to the water. Because the Proposed Project met their objectives, the Tribe forwarded their intent to enter into the lease agreement to the BIA to initiate the environmental review process for the proposed 100 MW Aiya Solar Project. JF - EPA number: 150129, Draft EIS, May 15, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/15/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 15 KW - Energy KW - Indian Reservations KW - Solar Energy KW - Land Use KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Wildlife KW - Vegetation KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Air Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Soils KW - Noise KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Public Health KW - Moapa River Indian Reservation KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AIYA+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AIYA+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Las Vegas, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-09 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 15, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CITY OF ROCKS NATIONAL RESERVE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16381001; 16500 AB - PURPOSE: City of Rocks National Reserve was established on November 18, 1988 (P.L. 100-696). The 1996 City of Rocks National Reserve Comprehensive Management Plan no longer provides adequate guidance to address the management and operational issues now facing the Reserve. This draft general management plan and environmental impact statement (GMP/EIS) examines four possible management strategies or alternatives, including the impacts of implementing these alternatives in the Reserve. These alternatives address visitor use and the preservation of natural and cultural resources to protect and interpret the significance of the Reserve. They comply with National Park Service (NPS) planning requirements and respond to issues identified during the public scoping process. Alternative B is the preferred alternative of the National Park Service and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR). If approved in a Record of Decision following the release of the final environmental impact statement, the preferred alternative will become the general management plan for the Reserve. Alternative A: the No Action Alternative would assume that current management, programming, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels and that existing plans would be implemented. Alternative B: Silent City of Rocks (preferred alternative) would focus on the spectacular scenery, geology, biological richness, and cultural landscape experienced by past and present visitors. It would emphasize a backcountry-type visitor experience that would allow for self-discovery within a minimally developed western outdoor environment. Alternative C: A Stage for Stewardship would protect resources through research activities, educational opportunities, and partnerships by emphasizing the national significance of the Reserve. Visitors would be provided opportunities to learn about the history and the natural wonders within the Reserve. Alternative D: Treasured Landscapes Inspiring Stories would tell the stories of the Reserve through the people who pass through, live, and recreate within it, focusing on the California Trail and ranching heritage. It would emphasize a front country, day-use experience with more formal and structured recreational opportunities and programs. JF - EPA number: 150123, Draft EIS, May 8, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/08/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 08 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - National Parks KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Trails KW - Historic Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Natural Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Geology KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Air Quality KW - Transportation KW - Soils KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Vegetation KW - Scenic Areas KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Mining KW - Indian Reservations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - City of Rocks National Reserve KW - Idaho KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Clean Air Act of 1963, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 10 Permits KW - Executive Order 11990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+ROCKS+NATIONAL+RESERVE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CASSIA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CITY+OF+ROCKS+NATIONAL+RESERVE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CASSIA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Almo, Idaho N1 - Date revised - 2016-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS STUDY. AN - 1813162441; 16494 AB - PURPOSE: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was established on August 1, 1916, as Hawaii National Park, and on September 22, 1961, its name was changed to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park when it was split from what is now Haleakala National Park. The 1975 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Master Plan no longer provides adequate guidance to address the management and operational issues now facing the park. This draft general management plan / wilderness study / environmental impact statement examines three possible management strategies or alternatives, including the impacts of implementing these alternatives in the park. These alternatives address visitor use and the preservation of natural and cultural resources to protect and interpret the significance of the park. They comply with National Park Service (NPS) planning requirements and respond to issues identified during the public scoping process. Alternative 2 is the NPS preferred alternative. If approved in a record of decision following the release of the final environmental impact statement, the preferred alternative will become the general management plan for the park. Alternative 1: the no-action alternative would assume that existing programming, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at current levels to protect the values of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. There would be no major changes in current management or visitor use, and implementation of currently approved plans would continue as funding allows. Alternative 2: the preferred alternative would strengthen and broaden opportunities to connect people with the volcanic world treasure, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and provide a wide range of high quality visitor experiences based on different geographic areas. This alternative emphasizes the parks role as a refuge and haven for native biota, people, and cultures in a world constantly adapting to volcanic activity and island-building processes and emphasizes Native Hawaiian values such as malama'ina (nourishing or taking care of the land) and kuleana (responsibility) as important concepts in park stewardship of resources. These alternatives would provide guidance to park managers about which resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences should be achieved rather than the details of how these conditions and experiences should be achieved. JF - EPA number: 150117, Draft EIS, May 1, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/01/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 01 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Parks KW - Volcanoes KW - Land Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Natural Resources KW - Cultural Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Sites KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Transportation KW - Air Quality KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Fire Protection KW - Soils KW - Public Health KW - Vegetation KW - Recreation KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - HawaiI Volcanoes National Park KW - Hawaii KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 978, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Clean Air Act of 1963, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1813162441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY.&rft.title=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HawaiI National Park, Hawai N1 - Date revised - 2016-08-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 1, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-08-23 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT AND NAVAJO MINE ENERGY PROJECT, NAVAJO NATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16385335; 16496 AB - PURPOSE: The Final EIS evaluated the environmental impacts that would result from the Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project. The proposed project would include continued operation of the Four Corners Power Plant with a capacity of generating up to 1,500 MW (two units), renewal of transmission line right-of-ways, continued surface coal mining within the Navajo Mine Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) permit area and extension of surface coal mining to the Pinabete SMCRA Permit area, including associated access roads, coal preparation facilities and other facilities. Several alternative actions for the power plant and mine are evaluated in this EIS, and the following five were carried through for full analysis: the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, two alternative mine plans, and an alternative ash disposal configuration. The No Action alternative would result in expiration of the power plant lease and associated transmission line rights-of-ways; expiration of Navajo Transitional Energy Companys SMCRA coal mining permit for the Navajo Mine; and OSMRE would not issue a new Pinabete SMCRA permit to mine additional coal at the Navajo Mine. JF - EPA number: 150119, Final EIS, May 1, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/01/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 01 KW - Energy KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Easements KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Refineries KW - Economic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Mining KW - Archaeological Sites KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOUR+CORNERS+POWER+PLANT+AND+NAVAJO+MINE+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NAVAJO+NATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FOUR+CORNERS+POWER+PLANT+AND+NAVAJO+MINE+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NAVAJO+NATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-08-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 1, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-08-23 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEVADA. AN - 16373123; 16498 AB - PURPOSE: The Final EIS analyzes the consequences of the agencies decisions on granting a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS) special use permits to construct and operate an extra-high voltage, direct current (DC) transmission system. The Final EIS is also part of Western's development activities in assisting the Applicant and precedes Western's decision whether to use its borrowing authority to finance and/or hold partial ownership with TransWest in the resulting transmission facilities and capacity. The Project would provide the transmission infrastructure and capacity to deliver approximately 3,000 megawatts of electric power from renewable and other energy sources in south-central Wyoming to a substation hub in southern Nevada. The Applicant-proposed Project would consist of an approximately 730-mile-long, 600-kilovolt, high voltage DC transmission line and two terminals, each containing an alternating current/direct current (AC/DC) converter station. The northern AC/DC converter station would be located near Sinclair, Wyoming, and the southern AC/DC converter station would be located near the Marketplace Hub-a group of substations approximately 25 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada. A ground electrode system (required for transmission line emergency shutdown) would be installed within 100 mile s of each terminal. The Project would retain an option for future interconnection with the Intermountain Power Project transmission system in Millard County, Utah. Alternatives to the proposed Project were developed in response to issues raised during the NEPA scoping period. The Project has been divided geographically into four regions for analysis based on common locations where project alternative routes converge and can be combined with other alternative routes in the region. Each region contains an Applicant-proposed route and two to five alternative routes that are analyzed in this EIS, as well as the No Action Alternative. BLM and Western, through consultation with other Federal, State, and local cooperating agencies, have identified an agency preferred alternative within each of the four regions that would combine to create a continuous route from Wyoming to Nevada, totaling approximately 730 miles. The BLM and USFS have identified plan amendments for each of the land use plans that would require modifications if the agency preferred or other alternative is selected. JF - EPA number: 150121, Final EIS, May 1, 2015 Y1 - 2015/05/01/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 May 01 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Federal 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/16373123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSWEST+EXPRESS+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRANSWEST+EXPRESS+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming N1 - Date revised - 2016-08-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 1, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-08-23 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR WESTERN OREGON, COOS BAY, EUGENE, MEDFORD, ROSEBUG, AND SALEM DISTRICTS AND THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICTS KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE, OREGON. AN - 16378066; 16484 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement addresses revision of the 1995 Resource Management Plans for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts and the Lakeview Districts Klamath Falls Field Office. The purpose of this Resource Management Plan revision is to provide a sustained yield of timber, contribute to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, provide clean water in watersheds, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, provide recreation opportunities, and coordinate management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe. The BLM analyzed the No Action alternative of continued implementation of the 1995 Resource Management Plans, four alternatives, and two sub-alternatives. JF - EPA number: 150107, Draft EIS, April 24, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/24/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 24 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Conservation KW - Wilderness KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fisheries KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Protection KW - Harvest KW - Land Use KW - Watersheds KW - Timber KW - Recreation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Hydrology KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Cultural Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Mineral Resources KW - Trails KW - Coquille Forest KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+FOR+WESTERN+OREGON%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+EUGENE%2C+MEDFORD%2C+ROSEBUG%2C+AND+SALEM+DISTRICTS+AND+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICTS+KLAMATH+FALLS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+FOR+WESTERN+OREGON%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+EUGENE%2C+MEDFORD%2C+ROSEBUG%2C+AND+SALEM+DISTRICTS+AND+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICTS+KLAMATH+FALLS+FIELD+OFFICE%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, Portland, Oregon N1 - Date revised - 2016-08-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-08-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS STUDY, VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16388852; 16481 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Channel Islands National Park is needed to fulfill the following purposes: confirm the purpose and significance of the national park; clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in Channel Islands National Park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions about such issues as how to best protect national park resources, how to provide a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities, how to manage visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if any, to develop in the national park; ensure that this foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action; and serve as the basis for later more detailed management documents, such as five-year strategic plans and implementation plans. The Park Service has identified five goals that this planning effort would address. Specifically, the goals of this plan are to: restore and maintain natural ecosystems and processes; preserve and protect cultural resources; provide opportunities and access for the public to experience and connect to the park; promote stewardship of park resources; and administer the park efficiently and effectively. The purpose of this wilderness study is to determine if and where lands within Channel Islands National Park should be proposed for wilderness designation. The study identifies a range of possible wilderness configurations within the park and evaluates their effects on the human environment. Based on the findings of this study, a formal wilderness proposal may be submitted to the Park Service director for approval and subsequent consideration by the U.S. Department of the Interior, president, and Congress under the provisions of the Wilderness Act. JF - EPA number: 150104, Final EIS, April 17, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/17/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Oceans KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fish KW - Vegetation KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Channel Islands KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+AND+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+AND+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 17, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 16390610; 16476 AB - PURPOSE: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation proposes to construct a project to provide drinking water to local communities and rural water systems in northwestern North Dakota. The project would be designed to supply bulk water to serve the municipal, rural, and industrial water needs through 2060. The proposed action would include the construction of components needed to provide reliable, high-quality drinking water to existing infrastructure for distribution to water users in the service area. This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement supplements the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Water Treatment prepared by Reclamation. It has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze and disclose the effects of the proposed action on environmental and human resources. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated. The Missouri River and Groundwater Alternative is the preferred alternative. This alternative includes an intake at Lake Sakakawea, within Reclamations Snake Creek Pumping Plant, and a Biota Water Treatment Plant in Max, North Dakota. Biota treatment, using conventional treatment processes, is included as a means of reducing the Project-related risk of transferring aquatic invasive species from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. JF - EPA number: 150099, Final Supplement EIS, April 10, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/10/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 10 KW - Water KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lakes KW - Water Treatments KW - North Dakota KW - Souris River KW - Missouri River KW - Lake Sakakawea KW - Boundary Water Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPAC+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPAC+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota N1 - Date revised - 2016-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 10, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KALAUPAPA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KALAWAO COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 16378930; 16473 AB - PURPOSE: Kalaupapa National Historical Park (NHP) was established on December 22, 1980 (P.L. 96-565). It is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) through cooperative agreements and a lease with State of Hawaii agencies and others. Kalaupapa NHP has never had a formal general management plan, and the unit needs guidance to address its many management and operational issues. These issues include the expected shift from co-management with the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) to a future when the DOH and the living patient community are no longer at Kalaupapa. Other major issues include resource management and visitor use and access. This draft GMP/EIS examines four possible management strategies, called alternatives, and the impacts of implementing these alternatives on Kalaupapa NHP. They comply with NPS planning requirements and respond to issues identified during the scoping process. Alternative C is the NPSs preferred alternative. JF - EPA number: 150096, Draft EIS, April 10, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/10/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - National Parks KW - Historic Sites KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Environmental Justice KW - Natural Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources KW - Museums KW - Air Quality KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Land Use KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Kalaupapa National Historical Park KW - Hawaii KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KALAUPAPA+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KALAWAO+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=KALAUPAPA+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KALAWAO+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kalaupapa, Hawaii N1 - Date revised - 2016-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 10, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND JUNCTION FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MESA, GARFIELD, MONTROSE, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16375321; 16478 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes four alternatives for managing 1.2 million acres of federal lands and resources in western Colorado administered by the US Bureau of Land Management. The Grand Junction Field Office spans portions of Mesa, Garfield, Montrose, and Rio Blanco Counties. The plan alternatives are Alternative A (the no action alternative or continuation of the 1987 RMP), Alternative B (the balanced alternative and Proposed RMP), Alternative C (conservation emphasis), and Alternative D (resource use emphasis). Planning issues addressed include categories such as travel management, energy development, recreation management, lands and realty/community growth and expansion, wildlife and fish, and special designations. The alternatives also address designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Wild and Scenic River suitability findings. JF - EPA number: 150101, Final EIS, April 10, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/10/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 10 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+JUNCTION+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MONTROSE%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRAND+JUNCTION+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MONTROSE%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+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, Grand Junction, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 10, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS WILDERNESS STEWARDSHIP PLAN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1802463696; 16461 AB - PURPOSE: This Wildness Stewardship Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (WSP/FEIS) will provide management direction for two designated wilderness areas, several potential wilderness additions, and an area of proposed wilderness. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law [PL] 98-425) designated the Sierra Crest portion of both parks as the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11) designated the John Krebs Wilderness in Sequoia National Park; it also expanded the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness to include the North Fork Kaweah area and Redwood Canyon area. The parks total designated wilderness is now 808,078 acres - approximately 93.3% of the total park acreage of 865,964. In addition, because the southern end of the Hockett Plateau (approximately 29,500 acres) remains proposed wilderness, it is managed as wilderness, according to law (PL 111-11) and NPS policy. The parks also contain several designated potential wilderness additions (DPWA), including the area around the Pear Lake Ski Hut and Bearpaw Meadow High Sierra Camp. These would become wilderness when and if the non-conforming activities (e.g., commercial enterprise) and/or facilities are removed. Altogether, designated and proposed wilderness areas comprise nearly 97% of the total acreage of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The WSP/FEIS addresses recent service wide guidance (NPS Management Policies 2006), reflects provisions of the California Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, incorporates new research findings, and uses a new interagency planning framework for the preservation of wilderness character. The purposes of the WSP include implementing the long-term vision for protecting wilderness character that is contained in the parks Final General Management Plan (GMP)/ Final Environmental Impact Statement, as well as enhancing established programs and actions for managing these areas as wilderness. (Note: In an order dated May 29, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California issued an opinion in a lawsuit that challenged the parks GMP [High Sierra Hikers Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior].) The Court order vacate[d] all portions of the GMP and Record of Decision (ROD) which provide programmatic guidance regarding the type or level of stock services necessary in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks wilderness or direction as to need, appropriateness, or size of developments, structures, or facilities used completely or partially for commercial stock services. Where the GMP is referred to in this document, only those sections not vacated by the court order apply.) The WSP also replaces the current plans of record, the 1986 Backcountry Management Plan (BMP) and its accompanying 1986 Stock Use and Meadow Management Plan (SUMMP). This WSP establishes a framework for managing wilderness and areas managed as wilderness within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to meet these critical objectives: preserve wilderness character; provide opportunities for and encourage public use and enjoyment of wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act and other laws and policies; improve conditions in areas where there may be unacceptable levels of impacts on wilderness character; and protect the natural and cultural resources within wilderness. JF - EPA number: 150084, Final EIS, April 3, 2015 Y1 - 2015/04/03/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Apr 03 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - National Parks KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Management KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Birds KW - Trails KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks KW - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1802463696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-04-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+WILDERNESS+STEWARDSHIP+PLAN%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+WILDERNESS+STEWARDSHIP+PLAN%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-07-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 3, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G LEASE AND MINE MODIFICATION PROJECT, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO (SECOND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 1785717509; 16458 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzes impacts related to lease and mine modifications for the Panels F and G Mining and Reclamation Plan at the J.R. Simplot Smoky Canyon Mine in southeast Idaho. The Proposed Action includes construction and operation of an ore conveyor system at Panel F; lease modification and expansion of the East overburden disposal area; expansion of the South overburden disposal area; replacing the currently approved geologic store and release cover with a geo-synthetic clay laminate liner, and implementation of associated storm water control measures. Use of existing support and mill facilities would continue. Two Action Alternatives to the Proposed Action are analyzed. Alternative 1 is the same as the Proposed Action; however, a mixed cover would be used to cover overburden in Panel G. Under Alternative 2, the Agency Preferred Alternative, the proposed lease modification area and expanded East overburden disposal area disturbance would be smaller than under the Proposed Action or Alternative 1 and a mixed cover would be used to cover overburden in Panel G. Under the No Action Alternative, the 2008 Record of Decisions, based upon the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement would continue to govern development of the phosphate resources of Panels F and G, and the currently approved Mine and Reclamation Plan would be executed. JF - EPA number: 150081, Second Final EIS, March 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 27 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Fertilizers KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho 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/1785717509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G+LEASE+AND+MINE+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28SECOND+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G+LEASE+AND+MINE+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28SECOND+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho N1 - Date revised - 2016-04-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER FIELD OFFICE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, RIO BLANCO, GARFIELD, AND MOFFAT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 1785717501; 16457 AB - PURPOSE: This Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement (RMPA/Final EIS) for Oil and Gas Development describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), White River Field Office (WRFO). Five alternatives for the RMPA are considered in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Alternative A is a continuation of current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the 1997 White River RMP; however, the analysis updates the 20-year development projection from the 1997 White River RMP to reflect the 2007 Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario. Resources and resource programs analyzed development projection of up to 550 well pads with an associated long-term disturbance of 6,600 acres. Alternative B evaluates limiting the duration and overall extent of development activities, through a managed development approach, in order to maintain existing resource conditions throughout all phases of development. The BLM would apply additional management actions to further protect the environment for these resources. Implementation of Alternative B could result in up to 1,100 well pads. Associated surface disturbance resulting from this level of development would total 13,200 acres. Alternative C emphasizes short-term use of the environment, with a managed development approach emphasizing the maintenance and enhancement of long-term community function and ecological integrity. This alternative projects development of up to 1,800 well pads with an associated surface disturbance totaling 21,600 acres. The management focus of Alternative D is the development of oil and gas resources, with an emphasis on the production of oil and gas resources under the environmental protection for other resources afforded by applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policy. Implementation of Alternative D is assumed to result in up to 2,556 new well pads with an associated surface disturbance of approximately 30,700 acres. The Proposed Amendment, Alternative E, combines elements of Alternatives A, B, C, and D. In acknowledging a trend for an increasing number of wells per pad, Alternative E reflects surface disturbance associated with development that would be similar to Alternative B (1,100 well pads or 13,200 acres) while allowing for well numbers anticipated under Alternative C (15,040 wells). The majority of development is expected to occur within the Mesaverde Play Area (MPA), with approximately 972 well pads within the MPA and 128 well pads outside the MPA. When completed, the RMPA will provide a set of comprehensive, long-range decisions for: (1) managing resources throughout the Planning Area and (2) identifying allowable uses on the public land surface and federal mineral estate administered by the BLM. JF - EPA number: 150080, Final EIS, March 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1785717501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+FIELD+OFFICE+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+RIO+BLANCO%2C+GARFIELD%2C+AND+MOFFAT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+FIELD+OFFICE+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+RIO+BLANCO%2C+GARFIELD%2C+AND+MOFFAT+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, Meeker Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-04-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG-TERM WATER TRANSFERS, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1785717499; 16459 AB - PURPOSE: This Long-Term Water Transfers Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) evaluates the potential impacts of alternatives to help address Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply shortages. SLDWMA Participating Members and other CVP water contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area experience severe reductions in CVP water supplies during dry hydrologic years. A number of entities upstream from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have expressed interest in transferring water to reduce the effects of CVP shortages to these agencies. The alternatives evaluated in this EIS/EIR include transfers of CVP and non CVP water or transfers from north of the Delta to CVP contractors south of the Delta that require the use of CVP and SWP facilities. Water would be made available for transfer through groundwater substitution, cropland idling, crop shifting, reservoir release, and conservation. This EIS/EIR evaluates potential impacts of water transfers over a 10-year period, 2015 through 2024. JF - EPA number: 150082, Final EIS, March 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 27 KW - Water KW - Water Supply KW - Water Quality KW - Soils KW - Air Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Cultural Resources KW - Visual Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Flood Control KW - Environmental Justice KW - Vegetation KW - Waterways KW - Rivers KW - Hydrology KW - Fisheries KW - Wetlands KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Threatened Species (Animals KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Agriculture KW - Reservoirs KW - Land Use KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - California KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, Section 404 Permits KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1785717499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Los Banos, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-04-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE THOMPSON CREEK MINE PLAN OF OPERATIONS, SECTION 404 CLEAN WATER ACT PERMIT APPLICATION, AND PUBLIC LAND DISPOSAL, CUSTER AND BANNOCK COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 1785717497; 16453 AB - PURPOSE: This final environmental impact statement/proposed resource management plan amendment describes the environmental effects of two proposals by Thompson Creek Mining Company: a modified mining plan of operations (MMPO) for the Thompson Creek Molybdenum Mine near the City of Clayton in Custer County, Idaho; and an exchange of Federal land at the mine for private lands owned by the company in Custer and Bannock counties, Idaho. In response to these proposals and a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit application, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will decide whether to approve the portion of the MMPO involving BLM-administered land; the Forest Service will decide whether to approve the portion of the MMPO involving National Forest System land; the US Army Corps of Engineers will decide whether to issue a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to discharge fill materials into waters of the US as required by the MMPO; the BLM will decide whether to amend the Challis Field Office 1999 resource management plan to identify the BLM-administered land in the land exchange proposal as available for disposal (exchange or sale); and the BLM will decide whether to approve a land disposal action. The final environmental impact statement describes the environmental effects of the two proposals and alternatives to the proposals in a set of MMPO alternatives and an independent set of land disposal alternatives. Alternative M2 (MMPO as submitted) and Alternative L2 (land exchange proposal as submitted) are preferred by the responsible officials. JF - EPA number: 150076, Final EIS, March 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 27 KW - Land Use KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Air Quality KW - Reclamation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Dredging KW - Forests KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Range Management KW - Grazing KW - Waste Disposal KW - Idaho KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1785717497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+PROPOSED+MODIFICATION+TO+THE+THOMPSON+CREEK+MINE+PLAN+OF+OPERATIONS%2C+SECTION+404+CLEAN+WATER+ACT+PERMIT+APPLICATION%2C+AND+PUBLIC+LAND+DISPOSAL%2C+CUSTER+AND+BANNOCK+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+PROPOSED+MODIFICATION+TO+THE+THOMPSON+CREEK+MINE+PLAN+OF+OPERATIONS%2C+SECTION+404+CLEAN+WATER+ACT+PERMIT+APPLICATION%2C+AND+PUBLIC+LAND+DISPOSAL%2C+CUSTER+AND+BANNOCK+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Challis, Idaho N1 - Date revised - 2016-04-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER FOR TRIBAL VILLAGE AND CASINO, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. AN - 16377907; 16444 AB - PURPOSE: The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) received an application for the conveyance into trust of 165.81 acres of land currently held by the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians in the City of South Bend, Saint Joseph County, Indiana on May 14th, 2012. The Band intends to develop a tribal village including 44 housing units, a multipurpose facility, health services, and other tribal government facilities. The proposed development for the property also includes a Class III gaming facility with a hotel, meeting space and a parking garage. JF - EPA number: 150067, Draft EIS, March 20, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/20/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 20 KW - Land Use KW - Indian Reservations KW - Soils KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wetlands KW - Cultural Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Agriculture KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Noise KW - Visual Resources KW - Public Health KW - Recreational Facilities KW - Indiana KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POKAGON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+FOR+TRIBAL+VILLAGE+AND+CASINO%2C+SOUTH+BEND%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=POKAGON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+FOR+TRIBAL+VILLAGE+AND+CASINO%2C+SOUTH+BEND%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bloomington, Minnesota N1 - Date revised - 2016-04-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST MOJAVE ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT DRAFT CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AMENDMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CALIFORNIA DESERT DISTRICT. AN - 1776080754; 16428 AB - PURPOSE: The Draft West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) describe and analyze alternatives for the planning and management of a transportation and travel network and livestock grazing on public lands and resources within the West Mojave Planning Area, administered by the BLM, California Desert District Office. The West Mojave (WEMO) Planning Area is located in southern California, in the northwestern third of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), and comprises approximately 9.4 million acres of land. Within the Decision Area, the BLM administers approximately 3.1 million acres of public lands. Through this Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment, the BLM is amending the 1980 CDCA Plan, as amended. The WMRNP Plan Amendment specifically amends the decisions in the 2006 West Mojave Plan Amendment to the CDCA Plan. It addresses specific issues raised in a federal court partial remand of the 2006 WEMO Plan and to consider new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances that have occurred since the 2006 WEMO Plan Record of Decision was signed. Many aspects of the 2006 WEMO Plan, developed as a habitat conservation plan to address sensitive species management, were kept in place. As part of the RMP amendment process, the BLM conducted scoping to solicit input from the public and interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues and impacts to be addressed in the Draft RMP Amendment and Draft SEIS. Planning issues identified for this WMRNP RMP Plan Amendment focus on transportation access for the public, commercial users, residents, associated recreational use, access impacts on sensitive resources, and livestock grazing management within the WEMO Planning Area. The WMRNP also includes implementation-level decisions, including a transportation and travel network which designates specific routes of travel in the WEMO Planning Area, and related implementation strategies. To assist the agency decision maker and the public in focusing on appropriate solutions to planning issues, the Draft EIS considers four alternatives. These alternatives include both Plan Amendment and implementation actions. JF - EPA number: 150051, Draft EIS, March 6, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/06/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 06 KW - Land Use KW - Transportation KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Conservation KW - Air Quality KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Birds KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Noise KW - Vegetation KW - Mojave Desert KW - California KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1776080754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+MOJAVE+ROUTE+NETWORK+PROJECT+DRAFT+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AMENDMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+DISTRICT.&rft.title=WEST+MOJAVE+ROUTE+NETWORK+PROJECT+DRAFT+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AMENDMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+DISTRICT.&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 N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2015 AND 2016, WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 246 AND 248, TEXAS AND LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16374896; 16430 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses two proposed Federal actions: proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Lease Sales 246 and 248 in the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the Gulf of Mexico, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA since publication of Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2013a); and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2014-2016; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 238, 246, and 248, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2014). This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a WPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and if so, it was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The proposed actions are considered to be major Federal actions requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposal. This Supplemental EIS is the final NEPA review conducted for proposed WPA Lease Sale 246. A separate NEPA review will be conducted prior to BOEMs decision on whether or how to proceed with proposed WPA Lease Sale 248. This document includes the purpose of and need for a WPA proposed action, identification of the alternatives, description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of a WPA proposed action, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with the WPA proposed actions are also analyzed. Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil spills), and potential impacts that might result if a WPA proposed action is adopted. Activities and disturbances associated with the WPA proposed actions on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. JF - EPA number: 150053, Final Supplement EIS, March 6, 2015 Y1 - 2015/03/06/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Mar 06 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Louisiana KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2015+AND+2016%2C+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+246+AND+248%2C+TEXAS+AND+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2015+AND+2016%2C+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+246+AND+248%2C+TEXAS+AND+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%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, Herndon, Virginia N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 6, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALCATRAZ FERRY EMBARKATION, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16392220; 16423 AB - PURPOSE: The National Park Service (NPS or Park Service) has prepared the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for establishing a long-term ferry embarkation site for passenger service between the northern San Francisco waterfront and Alcatraz Island, and special ferry service between the Alcatraz ferry embarkation site and the existing Fort Baker pier, as well as to and from Fort Mason (hereafter referred to as Project). The Project consists of a combination of indoor and outdoor spaces that serve to welcome, orient, and provide basic services for visitors. The Project also includes other administrative and operational spaces, and ramps and floats to support the berthing of up to three ferry boats at one time. The Draft EIS also programmatically evaluates the potential for ferry service linkages to other parklands in the San Francisco Bay. The purpose of this action is to create an identifiable, adequate, and quality visitor welcome and support area that connects visitors to the history of Alcatraz Island, other Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites, and orientation to the national park system in general. This action is needed because the NPS concession contract for water transportation services between San Francisco and Alcatraz Island has been subject to location changes every 10 years, which has led to visitor confusion, community concerns, and inconsistency in visitor support services, and the existing site is constrained by lease provisions. Selection of a specific ferry embarkation site is one step to addressing this need; however, that selection may also have to be coupled with agreements with the Port of San Francisco specifying the terms and conditions under which the site would be operated in the long-term. This Draft EIS presents and analyzes the potential consequences of four alternatives: a No Action alternative, the environmentally preferred alternative at Pier 3112, and the Pier 3 and 41 alternatives. This document does not identify an NPS preferred alternative. Each of the action alternatives would fulfill the Project objectives. The Draft EIS also proposes mitigation measures to minimize the effects of adverse impacts from construction or operation of the alternatives where such impacts may occur. JF - EPA number: 150041, Draft EIS, February 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/02/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 27 KW - Water KW - Ferries KW - Harbor Structures KW - Transportation KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Noise KW - Geology KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Visual Resources KW - Cultural Resources KW - Recreation KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Terminal Facilities KW - California KW - Alcatraz Island KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended,, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALCATRAZ+FERRY+EMBARKATION%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ALCATRAZ+FERRY+EMBARKATION%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THE GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF 2011). AN - 16392158; 16419 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) was prepared in response to an application to lease federal coal reserves in the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract (UTU-84102). The Proposed Action is to offer the tract through competitive leasing with conditions for the protection of non-mineral resources. The Final SEIS discloses the effects of offering the tract for lease by BLM, and the potential effects of mining and surface use based on a Conceptual Mine Plan and Reasonably Foreseeable Surface Use Scenario. The conceptual mine plan projects underground mining and the reasonably foreseeable surface use scenario describes potential surface uses including two ventilation shafts (one with a fan), intake shafts, utility boreholes, a power transmission line, and associated road access. Based on the analysis, the responsible agency officials must decide whether or not to offer the tract for competitive leasing, and if offered, what conditions to include for access to the coal resources and protection of other natural resources on national forest system lands. To address potential effects on the multiple resources which make up the affected environment, the BLM and the US Forest Service (FS), in coordination with cooperating agencies, have developed three alternatives in the Final SEIS. The alternatives include a No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and a third Alternative, which modifies components of the Proposed Action. The alternatives incorporate best management practices for underground coal mining and other measures necessary to adequately address impacts to geology, water resources, wildlife, vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species, cultural resources, socioeconomics, recreational opportunities, visual resources, air quality, and other relevant issues. This Final SEIS addresses concerns that were identified after releasing the FEIS and FS Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2011. The FS consented to BLMs decision to offer a federal coal lease with conditions. The consent decision was appealed February 13, 2012. Following the appeal, the FS withdrew the ROD in order to clarify the decisions to be made and agency decision authority; analyze the environmental consequences of potential actions to be taken by each agency; make technical corrections; and address agency compliance actions and resource concerns not previously analyzed in the original 2011 FEIS. This analysis clarifies potential effects within the Greens Hollow tract and those that may be reasonably foreseeable on adjacent National Forest System lands, mostly under active coal leases. JF - EPA number: 150045, Final Supplement EIS, February 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/02/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 27 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geology KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Noise KW - Sediment KW - Seismology KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THE+GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2011%29.&rft.title=THE+GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, JIMBILNAN, PINTO VALLEY, BLACK CANYON, ELDORADO, IRETEBA PEAKS, NELLIS WASH, SPIRIT MOUNTAIN, AND BRIDGE CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS, CLARK COUNTY , NEVADA. AN - 16373959; 16416 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this final wilderness management plan/environment impact statement is to outline steps for preserving the wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources in eight designated wilderness areas within Lake Mead National Recreation Area and adjacent BLM lands while also providing for the use and enjoyment of the wilderness areas. It is intended to provide accountability, consistency, and continuity for managing the wilderness areas in the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management wilderness management programs. JF - EPA number: 150042, Final EIS, February 27, 2015 Y1 - 2015/02/27/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 27 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - National Parks KW - Wilderness KW - Lakes KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Wilderness Management KW - Noise KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Vegetation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Nevada KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JIMBILNAN%2C+PINTO+VALLEY%2C+BLACK+CANYON%2C+ELDORADO%2C+IRETEBA+PEAKS%2C+NELLIS+WASH%2C+SPIRIT+MOUNTAIN%2C+AND+BRIDGE+CANYON+WILDERNESS+AREAS%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JIMBILNAN%2C+PINTO+VALLEY%2C+BLACK+CANYON%2C+ELDORADO%2C+IRETEBA+PEAKS%2C+NELLIS+WASH%2C+SPIRIT+MOUNTAIN%2C+AND+BRIDGE+CANYON+WILDERNESS+AREAS%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 27, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (FINAL SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 16388907; 16412 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) addresses Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Pursuant to a January 22, 2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand, BOEM has completed this Second SEIS process by publishing a draft Second SEIS, holding public hearings, conducting government-to-government consultations, and providing a public comment period following publication of the Draft Second SEIS. More than 430,000 comments were received from various entities. BOEM has considered and responded to these comments. The Final Second SEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of potential oil and gas activities associated with Lease Sale 193. This analysis is based on a new exploration and development scenario of 4.3 billion barrels of oil and 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and includes: a new Exploration and Development Scenario, analysis based on a review of new literature, new information on habitats, and new information on how resources could be affected by impact producing factors, updated description of the affected environment, resource-specific impact analyses, application of the principles of Integrated Arctic Management, cumulative impacts analyses, and consideration of alternatives and mitigations to reduce identified potential impacts. JF - EPA number: 150036, Final Second Supplemental EIS, February 20, 2015 Y1 - 2015/02/20/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 20 KW - Energy 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/16388907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-02-20&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+SECOND+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+SECOND+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, Anchorage, Alaska N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD ROCK MINE PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16372801; 16408 AB - PURPOSE: Midway proposes to develop an open pit gold mine in White Pine County, Nevada. The proposed Gold Rock Mine would be located approximately 50 miles west of Ely and 30 miles southeast of Eureka (Proposed Action). The mine would occupy the same general geographic area as the reclaimed and closed Easy Junior Mine and would be accessed using the existing main access route from US 50: County Route 5 (CR 5) (Green Springs Road) south to BLM Road 1179/CR 1204 west to CR 1177 (Easy Junior Road) south to the mine area. The project would include open pit mining, on-site ore crushing and processing using a central heap leach facility and/or a mill with a carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuit, and tailings storage facility (TSF), along with water supply wells and a delivery and storage system, exploration, and ancillary support facilities associated with mining operations (Midway 2013a). In addition to the 267 acres of previously authorized exploration disturbance (BLM 2012i), Midway proposes approximately 200 additional acres of exploration disturbance within the Plan area boundary, for a total of 467 acres of exploration disturbance. Midway would obtain power for the mine by constructing a power line and associated maintenance road that would tie into the approved power line to the Pan Mine. To promote public safety and mine security, Midway would work with the BLM and White Pine County to re-route a segment of CR 1177 (Easy Junior Road), which passes through the mine area. This re-route would include a construction of a short segment of new road. In total, the Proposed Action would disturb approximately 3,946 acres of surface disturbance. The projected mining period is 10 years, with associated construction, closure, reclamation, and post-closure monitoring periods extending the project life to approximately 48 years. Upon completion of mining, the operation would be closed and reclaimed per Nevada mining regulations and the proposed Reclamation and Closure Plans. JF - EPA number: 150031, Draft EIS, February 13, 2015 Y1 - 2015/02/13/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 13 KW - Land Use KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Mineral Resources KW - Geology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Birds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Range Management KW - Grazing KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Culture Resources KW - Soils KW - Visual Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-10 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Magmatic gas emissions at Holocene volcanic features near Mono Lake, California, and their relation to regional magmatism AN - 1692742365; 2015-060357 AB - Silicic lavas have erupted repeatedly in the Mono Basin over the past few thousand years, forming the massive domes and coulees of the Mono Craters chain and the smaller island vents in Mono Lake. We report here on the first systematic study of magmatic CO (sub 2) emissions from these features, conducted during 2007-2010. Most notably, a known locus of weak steam venting on the summit of North Coulee is actually enclosed in a large area ( approximately 0.25 km (super 2) ) of diffuse gas discharge that emits 10-14 t/d of CO (sub 2) , mostly at ambient temperature. Subsurface gases sampled here are heavily air-contaminated, but after standard corrections are applied, show average delta (super 13) C-CO (sub 2) of - 4.72 ppm, (super 3) He/ (super 4) He of 5.89R (sub A) , and CO (sub 2) / (super 3) He of 0.77 X 10 (super 10) , very similar to the values in fumarolic gas from Mammoth Mountain and the Long Valley Caldera immediately to the south of the basin. If these values also characterize the magmatic gas source at Mono Lake, where CO (sub 2) is captured by the alkaline lake water, a magmatic CO (sub 2) upflow beneath the lake of approximately 4 t/d can be inferred. Groundwater discharge from the Mono Craters area transports approximately 13 t/d of (super 14) C-dead CO (sub 2) as free gas and dissolved carbonate species, and adding in this component brings the estimated total magmatic CO (sub 2) output to 29 t/d for the two silicic systems in the Mono Basin. If these emissions reflect intrusion and degassing of underlying basalt with 0.5 wt.% CO (sub 2) , a modest intrusion rate of 0.00075 km (super 3) /yr is indicated. Much higher intrusion rates are required to account for CO (sub 2) emissions from Mammoth Mountain and the West Moat of the Long Valley Caldera. Abstract Copyright (2015) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research AU - Bergfeld, Deborah AU - Evans, William C AU - Howle (USGs), James F AU - Hunt, Andrew G Y1 - 2015/02/01/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Feb 01 SP - 70 EP - 83 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 292 SN - 0377-0273, 0377-0273 KW - United States KW - isotopes KW - fumaroles KW - Holocene KW - stable isotopes KW - Mono Craters KW - ground water KW - carbon dioxide KW - Cenozoic KW - California KW - geochemical surveys KW - volcanic features KW - radioactive isotopes KW - noble gases KW - carbon KW - springs KW - helium KW - degassing KW - Mono Basin KW - Quaternary KW - Mono County California KW - isotope ratios KW - magmatism KW - C-13/C-12 KW - Long Valley Caldera KW - gases KW - Mono Lake KW - eruptions KW - Mammoth Mountain KW - surveys KW - He-4/He-3 KW - C-14 KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 02A:General geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1692742365?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Volcanology+and+Geothermal+Research&rft.atitle=Magmatic+gas+emissions+at+Holocene+volcanic+features+near+Mono+Lake%2C+California%2C+and+their+relation+to+regional+magmatism&rft.au=Bergfeld%2C+Deborah%3BEvans%2C+William+C%3BHowle+%28USGs%29%2C+James+F%3BHunt%2C+Andrew+G&rft.aulast=Bergfeld&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2015-02-01&rft.volume=292&rft.issue=&rft.spage=70&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Volcanology+and+Geothermal+Research&rft.issn=03770273&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jvolgeores.2015.01.008 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03770273 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 62 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-02 N1 - CODEN - JVGRDQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - C-13/C-12; C-14; California; carbon; carbon dioxide; Cenozoic; degassing; eruptions; fumaroles; gases; geochemical surveys; ground water; He-4/He-3; helium; Holocene; isotope ratios; isotopes; Long Valley Caldera; magmatism; Mammoth Mountain; Mono Basin; Mono County California; Mono Craters; Mono Lake; noble gases; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; springs; stable isotopes; surveys; United States; volcanic features DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.01.008 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL (OCS) AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2016 AND 2017, CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 241 AND 247, EASTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 226, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENT SUPPLEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16395335; 16400 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses three proposed Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales: Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sales 241 and 247 and Eastern Planning Area (EPA) Lease Sale 226, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the CPA since publication of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b); Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2013a); and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2015-2017; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 235, 241, and 247, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (CPA 235/241/247 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2014). This Supplemental EIS also updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the EPA since publication of the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Five-Year Program EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c) and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2014 and 2016; Eastern Planning Area Lease Sales 225 and 226, Final Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 225/226 EIS) (USDOI, BOEM 2013b); and, due to the close proximity of the proposed EPA lease sale area to the CPA, incorporates by reference all of the relevant material in the EIS and Supplemental EISs that were prepared for the nearby or adjacent CPA and that are referenced above. This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a CPA proposed action and an EPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The proposed actions are considered to be major Federal actions requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposals. This document includes the purpose and background of a CPA and EPA proposed action, identification of the alternatives, description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of a CPA and EPA proposed action, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with a CPA and EPA proposed action are also analyzed. Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil spills), and potential impacts that might result if a CPA or EPA proposed action is adopted. Activities and disturbances associated with a CPA and EPA proposed action on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. JF - EPA number: 150022, Draft Supplement EIS, January 30, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/30/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 30 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16395335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana N1 - Date revised - 2016-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KACHESS DROUGHT RELIEF PUMPING PLANT AND KEECHELUS RESERVOIR-TO-KACHESS RESERVOIR CONVEYANCE, KITTITAS AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 1768156218; 16385 AB - PURPOSE: The Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington State Department of Ecology have jointly prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant (KDRPP) and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance (KKC). This document was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Ecology is the SEPA lead agency for the proposal. The action alternatives examine constructing and operating a pumping plant to access up to 200,000 acre-feet of water in Kachess Reservoir during drought years, constructing and operating a gravity flow tunnel from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir, and constructing several projects to enhance the resiliency of bull trout populations in the Kachess and Keechelus watersheds. These projects are part of the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (Integrated Plan). JF - EPA number: 150006, Draft EIS, January 16, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/16/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 16 KW - Water KW - Water Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Supply KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Historic Sites KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality KW - Reclamation KW - Watersheds KW - Soils KW - Geology KW - Wetlands KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Visual Resources KW - Air Quality KW - Land use KW - Recreation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Executive Order 11990, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1768156218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KACHESS+DROUGHT+RELIEF+PUMPING+PLANT+AND+KEECHELUS+RESERVOIR-TO-KACHESS+RESERVOIR+CONVEYANCE%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=KACHESS+DROUGHT+RELIEF+PUMPING+PLANT+AND+KEECHELUS+RESERVOIR-TO-KACHESS+RESERVOIR+CONVEYANCE%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH VALLEY REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16394011; 16390 AB - PURPOSE: The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the City of Modesto have jointly prepared this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program (NVRRWP or proposed project). The City of Modesto, City of Turlock, and Del Puerto Water District (DPWD) (Partner Agencies) propose to implement a regional solution to address water supply shortages in DPWDs service area on the west side of the San Joaquin River in San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced Counties, south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). The project would deliver up to 59,000 acre feet per year (AFY) of recycled water produced by the cities of Modesto and Turlock via the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC), a feature of the Central Valley Project owned by Reclamation. Instead of discharging in to the San Joaquin River, recycled water would be conveyed from Modesto and Turlock through pipelines from their wastewater treatment facilities, crossing the San Joaquin River, ending at the DMC. The recycled water would then be conveyed directly to DPWD customers. This project also proposes to provide water to Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) designated Refuges located south of the Delta to meet their need for water supply. The Project Partners have identified two alternatives that use different pipeline alignments to convey water to the DMC. In addition this EIR/EIS evaluates a third alternative, which would continue river discharge, and then divert and convey water to the DMC through expanded facilities owned by the Patterson Irrigation District. This EIR/EIS assesses potential environmental effects of the NVRRWP alternatives and a No Action Alternative on resources including: aesthetics, air quality, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, transportation, socioeconomics, environmental justice. JF - EPA number: 150011, Draft EIS, January 16, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/16/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 16 KW - Water KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Management KW - Water Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Irrigation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Pipelines KW - Visual Resources KW - Air Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hydrology KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Executive Order 13112, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Modesto, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEREDITH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, AND POTTER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16391112; 16382 AB - PURPOSE: This Lake Meredith National Recreation Area Off-road Management Plan / Environmental Impact (plan/EIS) analyzes a range of alternatives and actions for the management of off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Lake Meredith National Recreation Area (the national recreation area). The plan/EIS assesses the impacts that could result from continuing current management (the no-action alternative) or implementation of any of the three action alternatives. Upon conclusion of this plan and decision-making process, the alternative selected for implementation will become the ORV management plan, which will guide the management and control of ORVs at the national recreation area for the next 15 to 20 years. The plan will also form the basis for a special regulation to manage ORV use at the national recreation area. JF - EPA number: 150002, Final EIS, January 16, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/16/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Meredith National Recreation Area KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUTCHINSON%2C+MOORE%2C+AND+POTTER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUTCHINSON%2C+MOORE%2C+AND+POTTER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fritch, Texas N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 16, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BULL MOUNTAIN UNIT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16388602; 16386 AB - PURPOSE: The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Uncompahgre Field Office, has received a proposed Master Development Plan (MDP) for natural gas exploration and development from SG Interests I, Ltd. (SGI) for the Bull Mountain Unit. The Bull Mountain Unit MDP describes the exploration and development of up to 146 natural gas wells, 4 water disposal wells, and associated infrastructure on federal and private mineral leases. An MDP provides information common to multiple planned wells, including drilling plans, Surface Use Plans of Operations, and plans for future production. MDPs are typically prepared for a planned cluster of wells and associated facilities near, or for multiple in-fill wells scattered throughout, an oil and gas unit or field. They have information on associated facilities, such as roads, pipelines, utility corridors, and compressor stations. In 2003 (and updated in 2008), the BLM approved the unit agreement for the Bull Mountain Unit to provide for the orderly, planned, and structured development for extraction of the natural gas resources. The objective of unitization is to proceed with a program that will adequately and timely explore and develop all committed lands within the unit area without regard to internal ownership boundaries. By effectively eliminating internal property boundaries within the unit area, unitization permits the most efficient and cost effective means of developing the underlying oil and gas resources. Under terms of the unit agreement, SGI is required to diligently develop at least two producing wells per year in order to maintain the Bull Mountain Unit designation. This requirement is currently suspended under an approved Suspension of Operations and Production while this EIS is being prepared. JF - EPA number: 150007, Draft EIS, January 16, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/16/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 16 KW - Land Use KW - Natural gas KW - Air Quality KW - Noise KW - Soils KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Geology KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Visual Resources KW - Livestock KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Conservation KW - Leasing KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13112, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+UNIT+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+UNIT+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montrose, Colorado N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHEEP MOUNTAIN URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16377251; 16383 AB - PURPOSE: Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (Energy Fuels), a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc., proposes to mine uranium from existing mining claims within the 3,611-acre Sheep Mountain Project Area, located within Fremont County, Wyoming within the Crooks Gap-Green Mountain Mining District. Energy Fuels would utilize conventional open-pit and underground mining methods to remove uranium. Uranium has been historically mined in the Project Area, beginning in the early 1950s. The Project would involve three principal phases: Construction, Operations, and Reclamation. Within the 3,611-acre Project Area, a maximum of 929 acres would be disturbed on the surface throughout the anticipated 20-year Project schedule. Surface disturbance would be reclaimed and facilities would be decommissioned following completion of the Project. Three alternatives were analyzed in detail in this Draft EIS: the Proposed Action Alternative, the BLM Mitigation Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative consists of Energy Fuels Project as detailed in the Plan of Operations submitted to the BLM. The BLM Mitigation Alternative consists of Energy Fuels Project with modifications to reduce the environmental impact, meaning that in addition to Energy Fuels applicant-committed mitigation measures listed in this document, additional mitigation measures are recommended by the BLM to further lessen the environmental effects of the Project. Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would deny Energy Fuels Project as proposed. Because the Project is located within an active Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Permit to Mine (381C), Energy Fuels would continue with certain reclamation obligations under the No Action Alternative. The selection of the No Action Alternative is unlikely, but is analyzed in order to satisfy the requirements under NEPA. JF - EPA number: 150003, Draft EIS, January 16, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/16/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 16 KW - Land Use KW - Mining KW - Land Management KW - Air Quality KW - Mineral Resources KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Birds KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cultural Resources KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Wyoming KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHEEP+MOUNTAIN+URANIUM+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG CANYON MINE PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16391375; 16379 AB - PURPOSE: The Proposed Action includes constructing, operating, closing, and reclaiming the following: An open pit that accesses oxide gold ore; ore beneficiation methods (to remove the metal value from the ore) include cyanide heap leaching (to beneficiate lower grade oxide ore) and a cyanide leach mill (to beneficiate higher grade oxide ore); waste rock storage facility (WRSF) to contain all net neutralizing or non-potential acid generating waste rock generated in the mine; synthetic-lined tailings storage facility (TSF) to receive tailings slurry from the mill from which reclaimed water would be recycled back to the mill; mine haul and access roads between the open pit and WRSF, heap leach, and mill facility. No public access would be allowed on the roads within the Plan boundary due to Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations. Public access to the lower Goshute Valley would be via the Shafter exit from I-80; internal service and access roads with no public use on these internal roads; a water supply well or wells in Section 3, T35N, R66E, and a supply system for drinking water, water for dust control, ore beneficiation activities, and fire protection; support facilities for temporary ore storage, truck scale, administration office, first aid and safety related facilities, parking, maintenance shop, warehouse, fuel storage, ammonium nitrate and explosives storage, communications facilities, landfill, contractor/construction laydown and office area, and assay lab/sample preparation facility; power supply utilizing the existing electric distribution line and infrastructure owned by Wells Rural Electric Company (WREC) to the Oasis substation, and from Oasis substation, a new power line to the mine site to provide power for the heap leach facility, and other applications; power supply for the mill operations consisting of a gas-turbine electric generating plant and a gas pipeline constructed to bring natural gas from the Ruby Pipeline to the site; alternative water supply and associated facilities for Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada (Cities) to replace that portion of their current water supply which comes from Big Springs; growth medium (soil) stockpiles and construction material borrow pits; and exploration to further delineate ore zones and target potential mineralized resource areas within the Plan boundary. The Proposed Action would include a natural gas pipeline from the Ruby Pipeline north of Montello to an electric generating plant within the Plan boundary, which is included in the FEIS as a connected action. Herein, the project area refers to the Plan boundary, power supply pipeline corridor, and Cities alternative water supply. Prior to construction of the on-site mill, high grade ore would be hauled to Newmonts Gold Quarry facility near Carlin for processing. Loaded carbon would be hauled to Gold Quarry and reactivated carbon would then be trucked back from Gold Quarry to the Project. JF - EPA number: 140385, Final EIS, January 9, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/09/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 09 KW - Land Use KW - Tailings KW - Roads KW - Pipelines KW - Water Supply KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Quarries KW - Electric Power KW - Soils KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vegetation KW - Noise KW - Birds KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Nevada KW - Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Mining Act of 1965, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+CANYON+MINE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LONG+CANYON+MINE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 9, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VANTAGE TO POMONA HEIGHTS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BENTON, GRANT, KITTITAS, AND YAKIMA COUNTIES (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2013). AN - 16391332; 16375 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers the Proposed Action of authorizing a right-of-way across lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord Yakima Training Center (JBLM YTC), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the construction and operation of a transmission line and access roads associated with the Vantage-Pomona Heights 230 kV Transmission Line Project. Based on public comments received on the January 2013 Vantage-Pomona Heights 230 kV Transmission Line Project Draft EIS alternatives and on electrical regulating authoritys revised transmission line separation distance requirements, a new alternative is being considered that crosses the northern portion of JBLM YTC. This Supplemental Draft EIS considers one additional alternative with one subroute variation to supplement the nine alternatives considered in the Draft EIS: the New Northern Route (NNR) Alternative and Manastash Ridge Subroute. The following issues were identified for analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS based on public scoping and cooperating agency concerns: potential impacts on sage-grouse populations and habitat, and special status wildlife species and protected birds; avian collision potential; effects on vegetation; sagebrush and native grassland communities disturbance types and levels; endangered and threatened plant species effects; introduction, spread and control of noxious weeds; impacts on cultural resources, prehistoric and historic sites; electric and magnetic field health effects; impacts on residential areas and planned development; effects on productive or revenue generating state lands; effect on recreational areas and opportunities; impact on Native American Tribal cultural properties; financial impacts to farming and agricultural operations; effect on property values; effects on low-income and minority populations or communities; potential for increased public access on access roads; private property aesthetic impacts; effects on BLM Visual Resource Management objectives and Washington State Department of Transportation established visual quality; effects on fire management/suppression activities and risk of wild fire; and impacts on JBLM YTC training operations. JF - EPA number: 140381, Draft Supplement EIS, January 2, 2015 Y1 - 2015/01/02/ PY - 2015 DA - 2015 Jan 02 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Columbia River KW - Joint Base Lewis-McChord KW - Washington KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2015-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-03 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 2, 2015 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, TEXAS, DENT, SHANNON, AND CARTER COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 1739080902; 16345 AB - PURPOSE: Ozark National Scenic Riverways (the Riverways, National Riverways, or the park unit) was established as a unit of the national park system by the U.S. Congress in 1964. The first general management plan for the National Riverways was completed in 1984, and this plan served the park unit well for many years. However, the 1984 plan is outdated and the Riverways is now facing an increasing array of issues that require guidance through an updated, approved general management plan. A new plan is needed for the following reasons: confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways; clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at Ozark National Scenic Riverways; provide a framework for National Park Service (NPS) managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect the Riverways resources, provide a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities, and manage visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if any, to develop in the National Riverways; ensure that this framework for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by NPS leadership after adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. JF - EPA number: 140351, Final EIS, December 12, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Land Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Noise KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Ozark National Scenic Riverways KW - Wilderness Act of 1967, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1739080902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OZARK+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAYS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TEXAS%2C+DENT%2C+SHANNON%2C+AND+CARTER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=OZARK+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAYS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TEXAS%2C+DENT%2C+SHANNON%2C+AND+CARTER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Missouri N1 - Date revised - 2015-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-12-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, OHIO. AN - 1726710046; 16337 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this Final White-tailed Deer Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS) is to develop a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The white-tailed deer is a native species of Ohio and is a component of the natural ecosystems that are protected and maintained by the National Park Service (NPS). However, past and current changes in land use and habitat availability, as well as changes in predator populations and hunting activity, have affected the deer population in the Cuyahoga Valley and surrounding area. Cuyahoga Valley National Park began to address the issues associated with excessive deer numbers and overbrowsing impacts over 20 years ago, and since then has been conducting studies of both deer density and the effects of deer browsing on park resources. Deer density has varied and has decreased in many areas of the park in recent years, but there are large annual fluctuations and the densities remain above the levels that are considered desirable for forest regeneration. Long-term ecological monitoring and exclosure studies at the park have found that deer browsing is severely impeding the growth of seedlings, limiting the height of tree seedlings, and suppressing the growth of native groundcover. Deer browsing was also found to be related to a lower abundance of forest songbirds. Because the population of the deer herd has grown and continues to exist at relatively high densities that can have adverse effects on the park's vegetation, action is needed to provide the park with a long-term plan to address deer management and to ensure the following: deer do not become the dominant force in the ecosystem adversely impacting forest regeneration, sensitive vegetation, and other wildlife; natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of plant and animal species are not adversely affected by the large number of white-tailed deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park; declining forest regeneration is addressed and deer browsing does not continue at a level that eliminates or substantially reduces forest regeneration, and unacceptable adverse changes to wildlife habitat and forest structure and composition do not occur; the park's cultural landscape preservation goals and mandates are not compromised by the large number of white-tailed deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park; deer management actions are coordinated with other jurisdictional entities and other stakeholders. JF - EPA number: 140343, Final EIS, December 5, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Cuyahoga Valley National Park KW - Ohio KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1726710046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Brocksville, Ohio N1 - Date revised - 2015-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARSON CITY DISTRICT DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CARSON CITY, NEVADA. AN - 16393051; 16333 AB - PURPOSE: According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) shall develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans (43 USC 1712 [a]). Accordingly, the purpose of this Resource Management Plan (RMP) is to ensure that BLM-administered lands in the planning area are managed in accordance with the multiple use and sustained yield principles mandated by the FLPMA. With the support of new data, this RMP provides planning-level management strategies that are expressed in the form of goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management actions necessary to achieve the preferred conditions for resources and resource uses. The need for the RMP is to address policies and resource issues that have arisen since the adoption of the previous RMP and amendments. Major issues prompting the need for this RMP include the following: management of energy resources, including renewable resources such as geothermal, wind, and solar; management of resources for which there is a high demand but limited supply, such as water or fish and wildlife; management for the protection of sensitive resources, such as cultural or paleontological artifacts; management of increased conflicts between competing resource values and land uses, particularly as a result of increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; and management of the urban interface in light of expanding urban areas throughout the planning area. JF - EPA number: 140339, Draft EIS, December 5, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Cultural Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Trails KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARSON+CITY+DISTRICT+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARSON+CITY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CARSON+CITY+DISTRICT+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARSON+CITY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2015-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 5, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWLANDS PROJECT FINAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHOE, STOREY, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1722904698; 16326 AB - PURPOSE: This Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes three alternatives for managing Reclamation administered lands in the Newlands Project Planning Area, which is in the west - central Nevada counties of Washoe, Storey, Lyon, and Churchill. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is a continuation of the current management and is based on existing planning decisions. Alternative B, the Agency Preferred Alternative and proposed action, balances the demand for limited resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values found in the planning area. Alternative C, the Conservation Alternative, emphasizes active management of natural and cultural resources and places less emphasis on resource use than under Alternative A. Planning issues addressed include supporting agricultural endeavors and ensuring irrigation in Reclamations management practices; managing noxious and invasive plant species; determining how to manage livestock grazing; determining what types of recreation activities Reclamation will manage in the planning area; protecting the areas watershed and water quality; protecting public health and safety; and allowing oil and gas, mineral, geothermal, mill site, and renewable energy, while protecting resources. JF - EPA number: 140332, Final EIS, November 28, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Irrigation KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Roads KW - Water Resources Management KW - Nevada KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722904698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2015-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 28, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST EUGENE WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 1715908283; 16324 AB - PURPOSE: The Eugene District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing a resource management plan (RMP) for the West Eugene Wetlands planning area, which is comprised of BLM-administered land within and near the city of Eugene, Oregon. The planning area includes the approximately 1,340 acres of BLM-administered land and 96 acres of lands on which BLM has an ownership interest (conservation easement). The planning area is made up of acquired lands or survey hiatuses, and most lands were acquired with funds appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Some analyses also reference the planning area boundary, which is the broader geographic area surrounding the planning area, including all land ownerships. JF - EPA number: 140330, Final EIS, November 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Herbicides KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1715908283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+EUGENE+WETLANDS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+EUGENE+WETLANDS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Springfield, Oregon N1 - Date revised - 2015-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-09-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING, LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16388424; 16317 AB - PURPOSE: Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are two of the major developed areas on Lake Mohave within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the development concept plans for these two areas is to reevaluate the implementation strategies that were identified in the 1986 Lake Mead National Recreation Area General Management Plan / Development Concept Plans / Final Environmental Impact Statement and to incorporate the concepts and carrying capacities that were approved in the 2003 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement. Each development concept plan provides an integrated plan for development with site-specific guidance for the extent, type, and location of facilities and services that is consistent with the management direction and intent established in the 1986 and 2003 plans. This document presents three alternatives for managing the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. Alternative 1: No Action, Continue Current Management Trends reflects current management direction and serves as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. Existing facilities would be retained with minimal changes. Alternative 2: Implement Previous Planning Proposals would implement previous planning proposals that separate day use and marina facilities, maintain the type of overnight facilities, and provide flood mitigation. Alternative 3: Enhance Visitor Experience and Park Operations (Preferred Alternative) would enhance day-use opportunities, upgrade and expand the type of overnight facilities, and provide flood mitigation. The impacts of implementing the various alternatives were analyzed under five broad topic areas: natural resources; cultural resources; visitor use and experience; the socioeconomic environment; and Park operations. JF - EPA number: 140323, Final EIS, November 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Lake Mohave KW - Nevada KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Boulder City, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2015-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-08-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GREATER MOOSES TOOTH ONE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2004). AN - 1700329683; 16309 AB - PURPOSE: CPAI is proposing to produce hydrocarbon resources from a surface location on federal oil and gas lease AA-081798 in the NPR-A. The proposed GMT1 Project includes a drill site in the GMTU, a pipeline and road corridor to CPAI facilities at Colville Delta 5 (CD5), an ancillary water pipeline between CD1 and CD4, and a new gravel source. CD1, CD2, CD3, and CD4 are existing facilities. CD5 is currently authorized and expected to be in operation by late 2015. Development of the GMT1 Project is dependent on construction of CD5. This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being prepared to evaluate relevant new circumstances and information which have arisen since the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (ASDP) Final EIS was issued in September 2004, to provide opportunities for public participation, as well as to address changes to CPAIs proposed development plan for GMT1 (referred to as CD6 in the ASDP EIS). GMT1 is part of the ASDP, for which a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the BLM, with a Record of Decision (ROD) approving issuance of the BLM authorizations needed for development of the Alpine Field. The currently proposed GMT1 Development Project is very similar to the CD6 development approved for permitting in the 2004 ASDP ROD, with changes which reduce the overall impact. These changes include moving the drill site location out of the Fish Creek setback, reducing the road and pipeline length, thereby reducing amount of fill required and impacts to wetlands and increasing the length of the Tinmiaqsigvik (Ublutuoch) River Bridge. The BLM has lead responsibility for preparation of this Final SEIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDOI Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, State of Alaska, Native Village of Nuiqsut, and the North Slope Borough are participating in the analysis as Cooperating Agencies. The Final SEIS documents the potential effects to: Physiography, Geology, Soils and Permafrost, Sand and Gravel, Paleontological Resources, Water Resources, Surface Water Quality, Climate and Meteorology, Air Quality, Noise, Terrestrial Vegetation and Wetlands, Fish, Birds, Terrestrial Mammals, Marine Mammals, Threatened and Endangered Species, Sociocultural Environment, State and Local Economy, Subsistence Harvest and Uses, Environmental Justice, Public Health, Cultural Resources, Land Use, Recreation, Visual Resources, and Transportation. The potential effects of spilled crude oil produced fluids, seawater, and other chemicals have also been evaluated. This Final SEIS provides documentation of the analysis of five proposed action alternatives, and the No Action alternative. After further analysis, additional cooperating agency coordination, tribal consultation, and input from the public during the public comment period on the Draft SEIS, BLM has identified Alternative B as its Preferred Alternative for the GMT1 Final SEIS. JF - EPA number: 140315, Final Supplement EIS, Appendices, November 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1700329683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PROPOSED+GREATER+MOOSES+TOOTH+ONE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2004%29.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PROPOSED+GREATER+MOOSES+TOOTH+ONE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 1700329680; 16310 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) addresses Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea, Alaska. On June 18, 2010, by Secretarial Order No. 3302, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS) was renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). On October 1, 2011, BOEMRE was further re-organized into two independent bureaus: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which is responsible for managing development of the nations offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which is responsible for enforcement of safety and environmental regulations. The actions described in this Draft Second SEIS are attributed to MMS, BOEMRE or BOEM, as appropriate. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), established Federal jurisdiction over submerged lands seaward of State boundaries. Under the OCSLA, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is required to manage the orderly leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas resources on the Federal OCS. The Secretary develops the five-year OCS oil and gas program to balance orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments receipt of fair market value of lands leased and rights conveyed by the Federal Government. The OCSLA empowers the Secretary to grant leases to the highest qualified responsible bidder(s) on the basis of sealed competitive bids and to formulate such regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Secretary has designated BOEM as the agency responsible for leasing and approving plans for OCS oil, gas and mineral resource activities on the Federal OCS. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is responsible for the regulatory oversight and enforcement of the conduct of OCS activities in accordance with the provisions of the OCSLA. The OCSLA prescribes a four-stage process for oil and gas development. This four-level review process gives the Secretary a continuing opportunity for making informed adjustments (Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 828 [5th Cir. 1975]) to ensure that all OCS oil and gas activities are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. In the first stage, the Secretary (through BOEM) prepares a five-year leasing program to identify the size, timing, and location of proposed lease sales and an environmental document under NEPA. In the second stage, BOEM conducts the prelease process for sale-specific NEPA reviews. If BOEM proceeds with a lease sale, BOEM conducts a sealed-bid auction, opens the bids it receives, evaluates the bids for fair market value, and issues the leases. The third stage involves exploration of the leased tracts. Prior to any exploratory drilling, a lessee must submit an exploration plan (EP) to BOEM for review and approval. The EP must comply with the OCSLA, implementing regulations, lease provisions, and other Federal laws, and is subject to plan-specific environmental review under NEPA. BOEM must disapprove an EP if the proposed activities would cause serious harm or damage to the marine, coastal, or human environment. If the EP is approved, the lessee must also apply for any other specific permits or authorizations needed to conduct the activities as described in the EP. The fourth stage, development, is reached only if a lessee finds a commercially viable oil and/or gas discovery. A lessee must submit a detailed development and production plan (DPP) that BOEM must review under NEPA. If the DPP is approved, the lessee must also apply for specific pipeline, platform, and other permits for approval. In January 2008, the MMS issued a Final Notice of Sale for Chukchi Sea OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 to be conducted in February 2008. On January 31, 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (District Court) alleging violations pursuant to NEPA and the Endangered Species Act [Native Village of Point Hope v. Salazar, No. 1:08-cv-00004-RRB (D. Alaska)]. Lease Sale 193 was held in February 2008. The MMS received high bids totaling approximately $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases. On July 21, 2010, the District Court issued an Order remanding Lease Sale 193 to BOEM to satisfy its obligations under NEPA in accordance with the Courts opinion. The agency complied with the District Courts remand and released a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in August 2011. The Secretary of the Interior reaffirmed the lease sale in October 2011. In February 2012, the District Court ruled the Department of the Interior met its NEPA obligations on remand and dismissed the matter. In April 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the District Courts decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit).In a January 22, 2014 opinion, the Ninth Circuit found MMSs reliance in the [Final Environmental Impact Statement] on a one billion barrel estimate of total economically recoverable oil was arbitrary and capricious. The Ninth Circuit explained that NEPA require[s] [the Agency] to base its analysis on the full range of likely production if oil production were to occur. Id. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court which further remanded the matter to BOEM on April 24, 2014. BOEM has prepared a Draft Second SEIS for Lease Sale 193, in accordance with the April 24, 2014, remand order of the District Court. The Draft Second SEIS addresses the deficiencies identified in the Ninth Circuits January 2014 opinion. This Draft Second SEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of potential oil and gas activities associated with Lease Sale 193. This analysis is based on a new exploration and development scenario of 4.3 billion barrels of oil. This analysis includes a new Exploration and Development Scenario; analysis based on a review of new literature, new information on habitats, and new information on how resources could be affected by impact producing factors; updated description of the affected environment; resource-specific impact analyses; application of the principles of Integrated Arctic Management 1; cumulative impacts analyses; and consideration of alternatives and mitigations to reduce identified potential impacts. JF - EPA number: 140316, Second Draft Supplement EIS, Appendices, November 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1700329680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEASTERN STATES DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, AND VIRGINIA. AN - 1700095025; 16305 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Within the planning area, the decision-making scope of the RMP is limited to the decision area. The decision area includes 2,991 acres of BLM-administered surface land. In addition to BLM-administered surface land, BLM is generally responsible for administration of Federal mineral estate, including mineral estate underlying other Federal agencies. Within the planning area there is approximately 19 million acres of Federal land ownership, including approximately 10.3 million acres administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 3.7 million acres by the National Park Service (NPS), 2.4 million acres by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and 2.5 million acres by the Department of Defense (DOD). NPS and USFWS lands, however, are excluded from mineral leasing unless it is determined that oil or gas is being drained by wells drilled on adjacent lands. Therefore, the RMP will not include mineral leasing decisions for NPS and USFWS lands, except to say that any lands being drained would be available for lease. The RMP will also not make mineral leasing decisions for USFS lands, except to say that leasing of mineral estate underlying National Forests would be conducted by BLM consistent with USFS land use plans and leasing analyses. Within the planning area there are 28 National Forests, all of which are covered by existing Forest Plans. Four alternatives are analyzed in detail, including the Preferred Alternative. The management alternatives evaluated in this Draft RMP-EIS were developed to meet management goals and objectives and minimize adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development opportunities consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies. JF - EPA number: 140311, Draft EIS, Appendices, October 31, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mineral Resources KW - Air Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Visual Resources KW - Oil Production KW - Natural Gas KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Arkansas KW - Florida KW - Georgia KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1700095025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEASTERN+STATES+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+FLORIDA%2C+GEORGIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEASTERN+STATES+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+FLORIDA%2C+GEORGIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Jackson, Mississippi N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 31, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DYKE MARSH WETLAND RESTORATION AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN, DYKE MARSH WILDLIFE PRESERVE, VIRGINIA. AN - 16392975; 16289 AB - PURPOSE: This Dyke Marsh Wetland Restoration and Long-Term Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS) describes three alternatives for the restoration and management of the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve (Dyke Marsh) at George Washington Memorial Parkway, as well as the environment that would be affected by the alternatives and the environmental consequences of implementing these alternatives. The purpose of this plan is to develop and implement actions for restoration and long-term management of the tidal freshwater marsh and other associated wetland habitats that have been lost or impacted in Dyke Marsh. Dyke Marsh wetland resources, plant and animal communities, and natural ecosystem functions have been damaged by previous human uses and continued erosion, are subject to continuing threats, such as alterations to the hydrology in the Potomac River and in nearby tributaries, and other effects from urbanization in the surrounding region. In addition, the NPS is required to restore Dyke Marsh under Public Law (P.L.) 93-251 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007. A restoration and management plan is needed at this time to protect the existing wetlands from erosion, nonnative invasive plants, loss of habitat, and altered hydrologic regimes; restore wetlands and ecosystem functions and processes lost through sand and gravel mining and shoreline erosion; avoid increased costs from delayed restoration; and improve ecosystem services that benefit the Potomac River watershed and the Chesapeake Bay. Under alternative A: no action, there would be no restoration. Current management of the marsh would continue and the destabilized marsh would continue to erode at an accelerated rate. Under alternative B: Hydrologic Restoration and Minimal Wetland Restoration, the focus is on the most essential actions that would reestablish hydrologic conditions that shield the marsh from erosive currents and protect the Hog Island Gut channel and channel wall. A breakwater structure would be constructed on the south end of the marsh, in alignment with the northernmost extent of the historic promontory. Wetlands would be restored to wherever the water is less than 4 feet deep. This alternative would create approximately 70 acres of various new wetland habitats. Under alternative C: Hydrologic Restoration and Fullest Possible Extent of Wetland Restoration (Preferred Alternative), up to 180 acres of various wetland habitats would be restored in a phased approach. The initial phase would stabilize the marsh by installing a breakwater on the southern edge of the historic promontory and restoring marsh in the outline of the historic promontory and along the edge of existing marsh to wherever the water is less than 4 feet deep (approximately 40 acres). Future phases would continue marsh restoration within the historic boundaries of the marsh, except for the area immediately adjacent to the marina. Alternatives B and C both include fill of deep channels near the breakwater, and reestablishment of hydrologic connections to the approximately 30 acres on the inland side of the Haul Road to restore bottomland swamp forest areas. The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives are analyzed for hydrology and sediment transport, soils and sediments, surface water quality, floodplains, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife, species of special concern, archeological resources, historic structures and districts and cultural landscapes, visitor use and experience, adjacent property owners and the marina, and park management and operations. JF - EPA number: 140295, Final EIS, Appendices, October 10, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Wetlands KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Erosion KW - Hydrology KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Channels KW - Virginia KW - Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve KW - Potomac River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DYKE+MARSH+WETLAND+RESTORATION+AND+LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DYKE+MARSH+WILDLIFE+PRESERVE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=DYKE+MARSH+WETLAND+RESTORATION+AND+LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DYKE+MARSH+WILDLIFE+PRESERVE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, McLean, Virginia N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAS VEGAS AND PAHRUMP FIELD OFFICES DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEVADA. AN - 16377138; 16294 AB - PURPOSE: The Southern Nevada District Office has prepared the Draft RMP/EIS to support the revision of the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan. The revised RMP will guide management actions on public lands and mineral estates that are administered by the BLM within the Las Vegas and Pahrump field offices. This plan describes and analyzes four alternatives. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative; Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose varying levels of resource use and conservation. Alternative 3 is the agency-preferred alternative. Issues analyzed include visual resource management, areas of critical environmental concern, lands and realty management, wild and scenic rivers, minerals and energy resources, travel management, lands with wilderness characteristics, wild horses and burros, fire and fuels management, livestock grazing, recreation, fish and wildlife, vegetation, air, soil, cultural, and water resources. JF - EPA number: 140300, Draft EIS, Appendices, October 10, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Land use KW - Land Management KW - Air Quality KW - Soils KW - Water Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Sites KW - Visual Resources KW - Forests KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Recreation KW - Transportation KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 10, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARDIN, JASPER, JEFFERSON, LIBERTY, ORANGE, POLK, AND TYLER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 1692272342; 16276 AB - PURPOSE: This general management plan describes the general path the National Park Service (NPS) intends to follow in managing Big Thicket National Preserve for the next 1520 years. More specifically, the Big Thicket National Preserve Final General Management Plan-Environmental Impact Statement is intended to confirm the purpose and significance of Big Thicket National Preserve, clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in Big Thicket National Preserve, and provide a framework for preserve managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect preserve resources, how to provide quality visitor experiences, how to manage visitor use, and what types of facilities, if any, to develop in or near Big Thicket National Preserve. The general management plan does not describe how particular programs or projects should be prioritized or implemented. Those decisions will be addressed in future more detailed planning efforts. All future plans will tier from the approved general management plan. This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement examines four alternatives for managing Big Thicket National Preserve. In all of the alternatives, NPS managers would continue to strive to protect and maintain natural and cultural resource conditions. Natural and cultural resource management would concentrate on long-term monitoring, research, restoration, and mitigation where appropriate. Interpretation and education programs would continue to provide a variety of personal and nonpersonal services. JF - EPA number: 140282, Final EIS, October 3, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - National Parks KW - Lakes KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1692272342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-10-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARDIN%2C+JASPER%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LIBERTY%2C+ORANGE%2C+POLK%2C+AND+TYLER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARDIN%2C+JASPER%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LIBERTY%2C+ORANGE%2C+POLK%2C+AND+TYLER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kountze, Texas N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 3, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEREDITH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA ALIBATES FLINT QUARRIES NATIONAL MONUMENT ABBREVIATED FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, AND POTTER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 1692272341; 16277 AB - PURPOSE: Lake Meredith National Recreation Area was established by Congress in 1964, and its management was transferred to the National Park Service (NPS) in 1990. Its primary purpose is to provide public access to diverse land- and water-based recreational opportunities in the Texas panhandle. Although its management has been guided by a master plan and statement for management, a general management plan was not previously prepared for this national park unit. Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument was established by Congress in 1965 to provide for the preservation, protection, interpretation, and scientific study of Alibates flint deposits. The national monument is on the eastern edge of Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and the two national park system units are managed jointly. A management plan for the national monument was prepared by the National Park Service in 1976 and amended in 1985, but is out of date and does not meet the requirements of a general management plan. The Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement examines three alternatives for managing Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and three alternatives for managing Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument. The management timeframe is 15 to 20 years. The environmental impact statement component of the document analyzes the impacts of implementing each alternative. Alternative 1, the no action / continue current management alternative, would extend existing conditions and trends of national recreation area management into the future. This alternative serves as a basis of comparison for evaluating the action alternatives. Alternative 2 would focus on providing quality recreation, enhancing traditional activities, and improving resource protection. The focus would be on providing a better visitor experience through additional or improved facilities and increased interpretation in accessible settings, and expanding opportunities in more natural rural and semi-primitive zones. Alternative 3 is the NPS preferred alternative. It would promote both traditional and nontraditional uses, and develop facilities and opportunities to address changing lake conditions and visitor uses. The national recreation area would become a destination for semi primitive outdoor recreation opportunities and would strengthen partnerships to improve visitor experience. The draft environmental impact statement evaluated impacts of the alternatives on special status species, soils, archeological resources, historic structures and buildings, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics, transportation and access, and NPS operations. Alternative 3, which would promote recreation that does not rely on the presence of the lake, would have major, long-term, beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience. All other impacts of the alternatives would be less than major. JF - EPA number: 140283, Final EIS, October 3, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument KW - Lake Meredith National Recreation Area KW - Texas KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1692272341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-10-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+ALIBATES+FLINT+QUARRIES+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+ABBREVIATED+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUTCHINSON%2C+MOORE%2C+AND+POTTER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+ALIBATES+FLINT+QUARRIES+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+ABBREVIATED+FINAL+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUTCHINSON%2C+MOORE%2C+AND+POTTER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fritch, Texas N1 - Date revised - 2015-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 3, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-07-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (DRECP), CALIFORNIA. AN - 1690202629; 16272 AB - PURPOSE: The California Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert region is a remarkable place, home to an impressive array of sensitive species and their habitats, a robust cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Yet there is much more the California desert supports a variety of communities, military installations, and business interests, including agriculture, mining, and tourism. It also has an abundance of some of the best solar, wind, and geothermal resources in the nation. These renewable resources will play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gasses to address climate change and promote energy independence over the next several decades. The Draft DRECP would create a framework to streamline renewable energy permitting by planning for the long-term conservation of threatened and sensitive species and other resources on more than 22 million acres in Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. The Draft DRECP is a landscape-scale plan that uses science to inform the siting of renewable energy development projects and the conservation of species, creating systematic habitat protection and connectivity improvements across the Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert regions. The Draft DRECPs comprehensive approach is more transparent and predictable and would achieve conservation benefits that could not be achieved using the project-by-project approach currently used to permit renewable energy projects and protect species. The Draft DRECP considers renewable energy facility development in the desert over the next 25 years and, through strategic habitat conservation, provides an ecosystem approach to impact mitigation and landscape-level natural resources conservation. DRECP conservation measures will be monitored to evaluate their effectiveness and, through adaptive management, to make any needed revisions. As proposed, the Draft DRECP will: help California and the nation meet renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals; identify suitable areas within which the siting of renewable energy projects would be compatible with the conservation of species and habitat; identify suitable areas for biological conservation, management, and enhancement; develop a comprehensive conservation and mitigation frame-work to conserve and manage sensitive plant and wildlife species, natural communities, and other resources; provide a framework for coordinated state and federal environmental review and permitting activities for renewable energy and transmission projects; and on BLM-administered land, address other important resource values, such as cultural, recreation, visual, scientific, and wilderness characteristics. JF - EPA number: 140278, Draft EIS, Appendices, September 26, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Climate Change KW - Noise KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Recreation KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Public Health KW - Environmental Justice KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitats KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Flood Hazards KW - Water Quality KW - Soils KW - Hydrology KW - Drainage KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Paleontological Sites KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13112, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1690202629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Palm Springs, California N1 - Date revised - 2015-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 26, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM POOL RAISE PROJECT: A COMPONENT OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1690202628; 16271 AB - PURPOSE: Reclamation and Ecology propose to construct the Cle Elum Pool Raise Project within the congressional authorization given in Sections 1205 and 1206, Title XII, Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-434, (108 Stat. 4526 U.S. Code)). The authorization includes among other provisions: modify the radial gates at Cle Elum Dam to provide an additional 14,600 acre-feet of storage capacity in Cle Elum Reservoir; provide for shoreline protection of Cle Elum Reservoir; and accomplish necessary environmental mitigation. Reclamation proposes to use the additional stored water from the Cle Elum Pool Raise Project to improve instream flows consistent with the existing Title XII authorization(108 Stat. 4526 USC), or Reclamation would seek congressional authorization to redesignate the water as part of the Yakima Project Total Water Supply Available (TWSA) for both instream and out-of-stream uses. The individual components of the proposed Cle Elum Pool Raise Project include: modify the existing spillway radial gates to increase their height by 3 feet; install erosion protection along portions of the shoreline; raise the height of three existing earthen dikes north and east of the dam to provide additional freeboard; modify facilities and roads at the Cle Elum River Campground and Wish Poosh boat ramp to avoid inundation; and acquire real property interests where necessary to accommodate shoreline erosion protection and/or provide access for construction and maintenance. JF - EPA number: 140276, Draft EIS, September 26, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Cultural resources KW - Wildlife habitat KW - Noise KW - Wetlands KW - Endangered species (Animals) KW - Vegetation KW - Fish KW - Land Use KW - Transportation KW - Recreation KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Historic sites KW - Reclamation KW - Washington KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Clean Water Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1690202628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+POOL+RAISE+PROJECT%3A+A+COMPONENT+OF+THE+YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+POOL+RAISE+PROJECT%3A+A+COMPONENT+OF+THE+YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington N1 - Date revised - 2015-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 26, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONTRA LOMA RESERVOIR AND RECREATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1690202624; 16273 AB - PURPOSE: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Contra Loma Reservoir and Recreation Area (Contra Loma) located in Antioch, Contra Costa County, California (Figure ES-1). The Contra Loma RMP is a long-term plan to guide management of the resources on the Federal lands within the reservoir and recreation areas. The RMP is being developed in accordance with Reclamations 2003 Resource Management Plan Guidebook, Planning for the Future, and is based on a comprehensive inventory of environmental resources and facilities as well as input from the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), the City of Antioch (City), the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), and the public. The primary emphasis of the RMP is to protect the water supply and quality of Contra Loma Reservoir, while balancing the management of natural and cultural resources with enhancements to recreational uses within Contra Loma. Contra Loma consists of the 80-acre Contra Loma Reservoir and approximately 661 acres of surrounding land, including the Contra Loma Regional Park (Regional Park) and the Antioch Community Park (Community Park; Figure ES-2). Contra Loma Reservoir was constructed in 1967 as part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and is managed by Reclamations Mid-Pacific Regions South-Central California Area Office. CCWD operates and maintains the reservoir under contract with Reclamation. The reservoir receives and stores water from the Contra Costa Canal. The reservoir is primarily used as a regulating reservoir for peak or short-term municipal water supplies for CCWD customers, for emergency storage, and as a backup water supply during maintenance of upstream facilities. The recreation area was opened to the public in 1968 with few developed recreational facilities. On September 18, 1972, a management agreement between Reclamation and EBRPD transferred responsibility for land use management and development, construction, and maintenance of public recreational facilities to EBRPD (Bureau of Reclamation 1972). This agreement clarifies that the rights of EBRPD under this agreement are subordinate to the rights of the United States relating to the use of the lands and water areas for water regulation and other project purposes. EBRPD continues to manage the recreational lands surrounding the reservoir. The City operates and manages the Community Park in the northeastern portion of Contra Loma under a Reclamation-approved license agreement granted by EBRPD in 1985 and amended in 1990.The 1972 management agreement between Reclamation and EBRPD and the license agreement between EBRPD and the City were both scheduled to expire in December 2010. While the RMP process is on-going, Reclamation issued EBRPD an extension of the management agreement. EBRPD has expressed interest in renewing the management agreement with Reclamation. After completion of the RMP process, Reclamation will negotiate a new long-term management agreement with one or more local managing partner(s). JF - EPA number: 140279, Final EIS, Appendices, September 26, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Parks KW - Land Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analysis KW - Traffic Control KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fisheries KW - California KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1690202624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTRA+LOMA+RESERVOIR+AND+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONTRA+LOMA+RESERVOIR+AND+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California N1 - Date revised - 2015-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OCS OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2015-2017 CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 235, 241, AND 247, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 1688474551; 16264 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses three proposed Federal actions: proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Lease Sales 235, 241, and 247 in the Central Planning Area (CPA) of the Gulf of Mexico, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017(Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the CPA since publication of Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b) and Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233; Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231,Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2013a). This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a CPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and if so, it was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The proposed actions are considered to be major Federal actions requiring an EIS. This document provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposal. This Supplemental EIS is the final NEPA review conducted for proposed CPA Lease Sale 235. A separate NEPA review will be conducted prior to BOEMs decision on whether or how to proceed with proposed CPA Lease Sales 241 and 247. This document includes the purpose of and need for a CPA proposed action, identification of the alternatives, description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of a CPA proposed action, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with the proposed actions are also analyzed. Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil spills), and potential impacts that might result if a CPA proposed action is adopted. Activities and disturbances associated with a CPA proposed action on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are considered in the analyses. JF - EPA number: 140269, Final Supplement EIS, September 19, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1688474551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana N1 - Date revised - 2015-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 19, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE SHORELINE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE, PORTER, AND LAPORTE COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 1674681262; 16253 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the restoration of natural sediment movement along 21 miles of the southern shore of Lake Michigan within and adjacent to Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore are proposed. The project area is 50 miles southeast of Chicago, Illinois, in the counties of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte in northwest Indiana's industrial-urban corridor. The Lakeshore includes most of the beaches along Indiana's shoreline from Trail Creek in Michigan City to U.S. Steel in Gary. The shoreline in this area suffers from erosion that threatens national park resources, recreation opportunities, homes, and businesses. The erosion is largely due to the natural movement of sand being obstructed by navigational harbors and shoreline structures, resulting in sand accretion in some areas and sand starvation in others. Sand dredging and artificial beach nourishment operations have been used as stop-gap measures, but this process is not sustainable and does not address the long-term problem of protecting this valuable shoreline. The project area consists of four reaches of shoreline, Reaches 1 through 4, in an east-to-west direction. The park shoreline is not contiguous because of industrial and navigational structures, state park land, and other non-federal property. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, for reaches 1 and 2, extending from Crescent Dune to Willow Lane. All the alternatives provide for beach nourishment at Crescent Dune differing in the source of material (upland versus dredged), method of placement (hydraulic versus mechanical), and frequency of placement (every year or every five years). Additionally, one of the alternatives incorporates a permanent bypass system, and another incorporates the construction of a temporary submerged cobble berm. Alternative E, which incorporates the submerged cobble berm, is the preferred alternative for reaches 1 and 2. The berm would consist of natural, appropriate sized, glacially deposited aggregate material, and would disperse over time (about five years) by wave action and storm events. Under this alternative an annual beach nourishment program would be used in conjunction with the construction of the berm. For reaches 3 and 4, extending from Willow Lane to the City of Gary's U.S. Steel breakwater, four alternatives are evaluated, including a No Action Alternative. All of these alternatives provide for beach nourishment at Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk differentiated by the frequency of nourishment (every year or every five years), and one includes the development of a permanent bypass system. Only dredged material was considered for these alternatives because no viable access to the nourishment site exists for trucking in upland materials. Alternative C-5 which provides sediment nourishment every five years through a combination of mechanical and hydrologic means is the preferred alternative for reaches 3 and 4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would create a more natural ecosystem of shoreline vegetation and foredune and dune complexes and processes benefiting Pitchers thistle and the endangered piping plover. The restoration would preserve opportunities for the public to experience the natural scenic open spaces, historic features, and educational and recreational features of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of nourishment material would have adverse effects on aquatic fauna, terrestrial habitat, threatened and endangered species and species of concern, and soundscape. Under Alternative E, effects on all resources in reaches 1 and 2 would be no greater than moderate and adverse. Under Alternative C-5, effects would be no greater than short-term, moderate, and adverse on all resources in reaches 3 and 4 except aquatic fauna. Fish would be displaced during nourishment activities and fish life cycles would be interrupted. In addition, the larger footprint of the placement area would result in adverse effects to benthic communities along most of reach 3. However, under all the action alternatives, the impacted resources would benefit in the long term from the reduction of severe shoreline and beach erosion. JF - EPA number: 140258, Final EIS--300 pages, Appendices--192 pages, September 12, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Great Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Indiana KW - Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore KW - Lake Michigan KW - Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Access and Enhancement Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1674681262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-09-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Porter, Indiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 12, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1674681260; 16255 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives to increase storage of water from the upper San Joaquin River watershed to improve water supply reliability and operational flexibility in Central Valley Project San Joaquin Valley areas and other regions of California are proposed. Californias water supply system faces critical challenges with demands exceeding supplies for urban, agricultural, and environmental (fisheries, wildlife refuges) water uses across the State. Without further investment in water management and infrastructure, current statewide shortages are expected to increase to approximately 4.9 million acre-feet per year by 2030. This draft EIS examines a no action alternative and five action alternatives. All of the action alternatives include the following management measures: (1) surface water capacity would be increased by constructing a dam in the upstream portion of Millerton Lake at RM 274; (2) all action alternatives would modify Friant Dam operations to facilitate coordinated operations with the additional storage in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir and provide multi-purpose benefits; (3) incidental flood storage space would be increased by constructing a dam in the upstream portion of Millerton Lake at RM 274; (4) all action alternatives would generate hydropower with a new powerhouse using releases from the new reservoir; and (5) all action alternatives would develop replacement facilities to provide similar or greater recreational opportunities at Millerton Lake and the new reservoir. Alternative Plan 1 would provide new water supplies to the Friant Division and SWP SOD M&I contractors. New supplies to SWP SOD M&I contractors would be delivered via the San Joaquin River and exchanged for Delta supplies at Mendota Pool, where an equivalent amount of Delta water could be delivered to SWP SOD M&I contractors via the California Aqueduct. Alternative Plan 1 would include a 200 TAF minimum carryover storage target in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. Millerton Lake would maintain a 340 TAF minimum carryover storage target, with a preference to store water in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir before increasing Millerton Lake storage above the target. Alternative Plan 1 would include a fixed, low level intake structure (LLIS) on Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. The LLIS would be an inclined reinforced-concrete structure, located approximately 7,200 feet upstream from the dam and adjacent to and upstream from the outlet works entrance. The LLIS would consist of two, low-level fixed-wheel gates sized in combination to pass 20,000 cubic feet per second during high-flow conditions. Water through each gate would flow directly into the outlet works tunnel. Because the lower gates would also function to release higher flood flows, both would be necessary but only one gate would be opened, as needed, for normal releases. Alternative Plan 2 would provide new water supplies to Friant Division contractors via the Friant-Kern Canal and Madera Canals; and SWP SOD M&I contractors and CVP SOD contractors via the San Joaquin River through exchange at Mendota Pool and the California Aqueduct. This action alternative includes an LLIS and a 200 TAF minimum carryover storage target in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. Millerton Lake would maintain a 340 TAF minimum carryover storage target, with a preference to store water in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir before increasing Millerton Lake storage above the target. Alternative Plan 3 would provide new water supplies to: the Friant Division contractors via the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals; SWP SOD M&I contractors via existing cross-valley conveyance and the California Aqueduct; and CVP SOD contractors via the San Joaquin River through exchange at Mendota Pool and the California Aqueduct. This action alternative includes an LLIS and a 200 TAF minimum carryover storage target in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. Millerton Lake would maintain a 340 TAF minimum carryover storage target, with a preference to store water in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir before increasing Millerton Lake storage above the target. Alternative Plan 4 would provide new water supplies to the Friant Division contractors via the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals; and SWP SOD M&I contractors and CVP SOD contractors via the San Joaquin River through exchange at Mendota Pool and the California Aqueduct. This action alternative would include a selective-level intake structure (SLIS) and a 325 TAF minimum carryover storage target in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. Millerton Lake would maintain a 340 TAF minimum carryover storage target, with a preference to store water in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir before increasing Millerton Lake storage above the target. Alternative Plan 5 would provide new water supplies to Friant Division contractors via the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals; and CVP SOD contractors via the San Joaquin River through exchange at Mendota Pool and the California Aqueduct. This action alternative includes a LLIS and a 100 TAF minimum carryover storage target in Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir. Millerton Lake would maintain a 130 TAF minimum carryover storage target. This action alternative considers an operational preference for keeping Millerton Lake storage at 340 TAF, but allows for Millerton Lake to be drawn down to 130 TAF when needed for water supply delivery and to fill completely (to 450 TAF) once Temperance Flat RM 274 Reservoir is full. Alternative Plan 5 also includes modification of the water supply allocation operational rules to increase drier year water supply reliability with minimal impact to long term average annual water supply reliability. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The action alternatives would improve shallow-water habitat for largemouth bass, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, and other sport fish species. The alternatives would also improve open-water habitat for striped bass and the American shad. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The action alternatives would create loss of riverine habitat for lotic fish species in the primary study area. The alternatives would negatively impact the spawning habitat of American shad and striped bass. The change in water temperature conditions could negatively impact juvenile salmon and steelhead migration in the extended study area. Losses of special-status plants and habitat and other riparian habitats could occur. Amphibian and reptile populations in the study area could be affected. Bald Eagle, Golden eagle, California spotted owl, peregrine falcon, and prairie falcon populations could be affected. JF - EPA number: 140260, Draft EIS--2,069 pages, Appendices-- 5,202 pages, September 12, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Reservoirs KW - Recreation Resources KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Public Law 108-7, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 108-361, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1674681260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-09-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+BASIN+STORAGE+INVESTIGATION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+BASIN+STORAGE+INVESTIGATION%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 - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 12, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MASTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT POWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1672869431; 16241 AB - PURPOSE: San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is proposing to combine 70 individual use permits and easements for SDG&E electric facilities within the Cleveland National Forest into one Master Special Use Permit (MSUP) to be issued by the Forest Service. In addition, SDG&E is proposing to replace certain electric power lines located within and outside the CNF. Replacement would primarily include fire hardening (wood-to-steel pole replacement), relocation, and undergrounding. The proposed power line replacement projects will require authorization under the MSUP, as well as approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Alternatives considered in this draft EIS include those considered by SDG&E, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Forest Service and the BIA, as well as those identified by the general public and other agencies during the public scoping period. Of the 26 alternatives considered to SDG&Es proposed project, 11 project alternatives along with the No Action and No Project alternatives are carried forward. The Federal proposed action includes actions proposed by the Forest Service, BIA, and BLM. The Forest Service proposed action includes issuance of an MSUP for the SDG&E system in the Cleveland National Forest and modifies SDG&Es proposed project along TL626, C157 and C440. The BIA proposed action also includes upgrades to facilities on La Jolla Reservation lands as proposed by the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians. The BLM proposed action includes issuing ROW grants for portions of SDG&Es proposed power line replacement projects for TL629, TL625, and TL6923. The Forest Service proposed action considers the following five options for relocating certain segments of TL626. All other project components would remain the same under these alternatives. Option 1 reroutes a portion of TL626 to the east on the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation Lands and would develop over 5.5 miles of new overhead electric utility ROW and extend TL626 to approximately 20.6 miles in length compared to the reconstruction of 18.8 miles of the existing TL626 in place as proposed. Approximately 3.7 miles of the existing alignment and associated access roads would be restored. Option 2 reroutes a portion of TL626 to the east and around the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation Lands and would develop over 5.6 miles of new overhead electric utility ROW and extend TL626 to approximately 20.7 miles in length compared to the reconstruction of 18.8 miles of the existing TL626 in place as proposed. Approximately 3.7 miles of the existing alignment and associated access roads would be restored. Options 3a and 3b would consist of placing a segment of TL626 underground in Boulder Creek Road. Depending on the option, TL626 would be extended to 26.3 miles (Option 3a which undergrounds 11.4 miles and includes 1 mile of new overhead ROW) or 22.9 miles (Option 3b which undergrounds 6.3 miles and includes 1 mile of new overhead ROW) in length compared to the reconstruction of 18.8 miles of the existing TL626 in place as proposed. Approximately 4.9 miles and 3.2 miles for Options 3a and 3b, respectively, of the existing alignment and associated access roads would be restored. Option 4 relocates a 7.5-mile segment of TL626 overhead along Boulder Creek Road to Pine Hills Fire Station where it would connect to Options 1 and 2 described above and continue overland for approximately 2.1 miles. The rerouted segment of Option 4 would develop approximately 9.6 miles of new overhead ROW and extend TL626 to 23.5 miles compared to the reconstruction of 18.8 miles of the existing TL626 in place as proposed. Approximately 4.9 miles of the existing alignment and associated access roads would be restored. Option 5 relocates a portion of TL626 around the Inaja Memorial Picnic Area. It also consists of approximately 2,100 feet of relocated overhead alignment along with a 400-foot underground segment located within an existing parking lot. The existing crossing and access road would be restored. The Forest Service proposed action considers the following two options for relocating a segment of C157 to avoid designated wilderness areas. All other project components would remain the same under these alternatives. Option 1 reroutes an approximately 2-mile segment of C157 to the south of the existing alignment. Extends C157 to 4.1 miles in length compared to the reconstruction of 3.5 miles of the existing C157 as proposed. Option 2 reroutes a 2-mile segment of C157 similar to option 1 with a slight shift on City-owned property to the north. This option would extend C157 to 4.1 miles in length compared to the reconstruction of 3.5 miles of the existing C157 as proposed. Besides undergrounding C440 as proposed by the project, the Forest Service proposed action includes undergrounding an additional 14.3 miles of C440 primarily within existing roadways in the Mount Laguna Recreation Area. All other project components would remain the same under this alternative. The BIA proposed action would modify TL682 on Tribal lands by undergrounding a 1,500-foot segment of TL682 through the economic development zone located on the La Jolla Reservation along with relocation of certain poles. The BLM action would authorize the power line replacement work included in SDG&Es proposed project on public lands administered by the BLM for portions of SDG&Es proposed power line replacement project for TL629, TL625, and TL6923, and issue ROW grants for the continued occupancy of the transmission lines on public lands under BLM jurisdiction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would authorize the power lines and associated upgrades needed to continue electric service to a variety of users within and adjacent to the Indian trust lands in a manner that is consistent with tribal land use goals and policies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: SDG&Es proposed project would have adverse impacts under NEPA that cannot be mitigated and, under CEQA, would have significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts to visual resources (Impact VIS-1: TL626 impact to Inaja scenic overlook); air quality (Impact AIR-1: construction would generate NOx and PM10 emissions of criteria pollutants), water resources (Impact HYD-4: ongoing use of access roads associated with C79, C442, TL625, TL626, and TL 629 in excess of 25% slopes would result in erosion, gullying and sedimentation), and land use (Impact LU-3: conflicts with the Wilderness Act associated with C157). JF - EPA number: 140246, Draft EIS--1,432 pages, Appendices--136 pages, September 5, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Electric Power KW - Transmission Lines KW - Forests KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Air Quality KW - California KW - Cleveland National Forest UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1672869431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Encinitas, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 5, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION AND CASINO PROJECT, BRISTOL AND BARNSTABLE COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 1672869428; 16239 AB - PURPOSE: A proposal to transfer approximately 151 acres of property in the City of Taunton, Massachusetts and approximately 170 acres of property in the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts from fee ownership by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe to the U.S. to be held in trust for the beneficial use of the tribe, the issuance of a reservation proclamation for these lands, and the subsequent development of a destination resort casino and ancillary facilities in Taunton and tribal facilities in Mashpee is presented. The eleven parcels in Mashpee include the Tribal Meeting House, Cemetery, Parsonage, Tribal Museum, Tribal governmental offices, and Conservation land. The land proposed to be taken into trust by the BIA in Taunton is located within and adjacent to the Liberty & Union Industrial Park (LUIP), which is generally bounded to the north by Middleborough Avenue, which is residential; to the east by Stevens Street, which is residential and commercial; to the south by Route 140; and to the west by Route 24. The LUIP is a commercial/industrial development park created in 2003 and operated by the private, non-profit entity Taunton Development Corporation (TDC) for the purpose of generating economic development opportunities for the City of Taunton. Existing development on these parcels consists of five light industrial/warehouse/office buildings and three residences totaling approximately 250,400 square feet and associated parking. A total of four alternatives have been proposed. Under Alternative A, the tribe would subsequently develop the lands in Taunton into a resort casino complex. The proposed phased development in Taunton would include an approximately 400,000 square-foot casino including 4,400 gaming positions, three 300-room hotels, an events center, fine dining, a 24 hour restaurant, an international buffet, a food court, retail stores, a 25,000 square-foot water park, a 4,431-space parking garage, and approximately 1,940 surface parking spaces. Under Alternative B, the phased development in Taunton would include an approximately 195,000 square-foot casino including 2,330 gaming positions, one 300-room hotel, an international buffet, a food court, retail stores, a 25,000 square-foot water park, a 3,012-space parking garage, and approximately 1,940 surface parking spaces. Among the elements included in Alternative A but eliminated under Alternative B are the two hotels adjacent to the casino, the events center, and fine dining restaurants. Under Alternative C, the phased development in Taunton would be the same as that of Alternative A in its casino, restaurant, and parking garage facilities. Alternative C would include two 300-room hotels. Alternative C also would eliminate the proposed water park and the affiliated hotel, and 500 surface parking spaces described in Alternative A. Alternative D is the No Action Alternative and assumes that no lands in Mashpee or Taunton would be taken into trust on behalf of the tribe. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Acquisition of the parcels into trust would aid the Tribe in accomplishing its missions of self-determination and self-governance; cultural preservation; and housing, educating, and otherwise providing for its members. The proposed casino development would create employment opportunities for tribal members and would generate revenues that serve tribal members. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would generate construction traffic associated with employees and the transport of equipment and materials to the project site. Alternative A would involve approximately 5,526 square feet temporary direct impacts and approximately 6,318 square feet permanent direct impacts due to wetland fill and stream crossing on site. The increase in impervious area related to development would increase stormwater runoff on-site. Development would impact approximately 15.6 acres of currently undeveloped Prime Soils and approximately 7.9 acres of currently undeveloped State Important Soils. There is the potential to encounter soil contamination associated with the 1988 gasoline release at 61 Stevens Street, and soil may be impacted along the property line with the auto salvage yard at 57 Stevens Street. Lead paint and asbestos containing materials may be encountered on the parcel. Construction equipment, motor vehicles, and fugitive dust from disturbed soil surface areas could impact air quality during construction. JF - EPA number: 140244, Final EIS--1,095 pages, Appendices--9,421 pages, September 5, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Soils KW - Site Planning KW - Wetlands KW - Massachusetts KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1672869428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-09-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MASHPEE+WAMPANOAG+TRIBE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL+AND+BARNSTABLE+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=MASHPEE+WAMPANOAG+TRIBE+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL+AND+BARNSTABLE+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 5, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINTENTL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2014-2016, WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 246 AND 248, TEXAS AND LOUISIANA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 1672869426; 16240 AB - PURPOSE: Lease sales for oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are proposed. This second draft supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of a WPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. Two action alternatives and one no action alternative were considered for this EIS. Alternative A, the proposed action and preferred alternative, would offer for lease all unleased blocks with the proposed WPA lease sale area for oil and gas operations. The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million acres (ac). As of July 2014, approximately 21.6 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of natural resources projected to be developed as a result of a proposed WPA lease sale is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area, as described for a proposed action, but it would exclude from lease any unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas. Alternative C represents the no action alternative and would cancel the proposed WPA lease sale. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sales would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. Lease stipulations would reduce or eliminate environmental risks and/or potential multiple-use conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts from routine activities associated with a WPA proposed action would be minimal if all existing regulatory requirements are met. Coastal water impacts associated with routine activities include increases in turbidity resulting from pipeline installation and navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities. Turbidity impacts from pipeline installation and maintenance dredging associated with a WPA proposed action would be temporary and localized due to regulations and mitigating measures. Chemosynthetic and nonchemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from structure placement, anchoring, and pipeline installation associated with a WPA proposed action. The routine activities associated with a WPA proposed action that would impact soft bottom benthic communities (i.e., bottom disturbance from anchoring and infrastructure emplacement, and accumulation of drill cuttings on the seafloor) generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms, and the greatest impacts are seen in communities closest to the platform. JF - EPA number: 140245, Second Draft Supplemental EIS--480 pages, September 5, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Louisiana KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1672869426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BAKER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAKER%2C+UNION%2C+WALLOWA%2C+MALHEUR%2C+MORROW%2C+AND+UMATILLA+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON+AND+ASOTIN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 5, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND OIL AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1671201435; 16237 AB - PURPOSE: Leasing of Forest Service lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (PNG) for oil and/or natural gas exploration is proposed. In many parts of the United States, National Forest System (NFS) lands overlie oil and gas resources. The Forest Service manages NFS lands, outside of statutory wilderness areas and other limited use designations, for a spectrum of uses under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Part of the Forest Services multiple use mission is to allow for the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas resources while sustaining the long term health and biological diversity of ecosystems. Because the leasing analysis involves determinations on availability and stipulations, the alternatives analyzed in this DEIS have different combinations of lands available and stipulations. However, because the PNG contains a mixture of private mineral estate, existing leases, and unleased lands, these determinations will apply most directly to the unleased portion of the PNG (approximately 100,000 acres). There are two primary reasons for this. First, approximately 46,000 acres of the PNG lie above private mineral estate. Because the mineral estate is privately held, federal availability determinations and lease stipulations do not apply. Second, approximately 43,000 acres of the PNG are already leased. Because these lease rights are already granted, they will continue under their existing terms until they expire. However, if existing leases expire, the land availability and lease stipulation determinations under this decision will be included in any future leasing decisions on these lands. This draft EIS examines the following three alternatives: (1) no leasing; (2) no action; and (3) no surface occupancy. Alternative 1, the No Leasing Alternative, will designate all unleased lands on the PNG as administratively unavailable for lease. This means that no leases could be sold on these lands. Existing leases, if they expired, could also not be leased again. Alternative 2, the No Action Alternative, will continue the availability and stipulation determinations made as part of the 1997 Forest Plan. This decision made nearly all lands on the PNG available for leasing and included a mixture of stipulations (timing limitations, no surface occupancy, and controlled surface use). In short, these stipulations allow oil and gas development on the PNG surface so long as it conforms to the stipulations. Alternative 3, the No Surface Occupancy Alternative and the Forest Services preferred alternative, will designate all unleased lands on the PNG as administratively available for lease. These lands will carry a no surface occupancy stipulation. This stipulation prohibits oil and gas development on the leasehold. In short, leases may be offered for sale, but once purchased, accessing the oil and gas resource cannot occur on the leasehold. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Around 590 million barrels of oil and 1180 MCF of gas will be produced from existing and unleased lands with the preferred alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have a slightly negative effect on fish populations in the area. JF - EPA number: 140242, Draft EIS--361 pages, Appendices--101 pages, August 29, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Exploration 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 - Colorado KW - Pawnee National Grassland KW - Arapaho National Forest KW - Roosevelt National Forest KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671201435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ANALYSIS%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+WELD+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+ANALYSIS%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+WELD+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 29, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1669442112; 16225 AB - PURPOSE: A resource management plan (RMP) to guide decisions by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the public lands managed by the BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbridge Field Office in south-central Idaho and northern, Nevada is proposed. Within the planning area, BLM manages 1.37 million acres of public land surface and 1.61 million acres of federal mineral estate in Elmore, Twin Falls, and Owyhee counties in Idaho and Elko County, Nevada. The planning area boundary extends from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the east, and from the Snake River on the north to the northern boundaries of the BLM Elko Field Office and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on the south. Hot Springs, Indian Cove, Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and Roseworth are the only communities within the planning area; all have populations of less than 100 people. The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush steppe and seeded grasslands, mostly from fire rehabilitation projects. The need to revise the Jarbridge RMP arises from numerous changes in circumstances since the current land use plans were adopted in 1987. Key issues identified through scoping and used to develop the final RMP include those related to upland and riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation, energy development, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative I focuses on enhancing and sustaining existing and historic uses of the planning area and would have the largest component of active recreation management for motorized recreation, hunting and fishing, hiking, and water-based recreation. Livestock grazing would be maintained near 2009 levels. This alternative would focus more on implementing management to benefit mule deer than other alternatives. Alternative II focuses on increasing commercial uses throughout the planning area and livestock grazing would be increased substantially. Other commercial uses, including energy development, would be allowed throughout most areas and have the fewest restrictions compared to the other alternatives. Alternative III focuses on restoring the resiliency of the ecosystem through intensive management of fuels and enhanced fire suppression. Non-native perennial plant communities would be actively managed to contribute to wildland fire prevention and suppression efforts, including increased levels of permitted livestock grazing. Alternative IV, which is the preferred alternative, focuses on actively restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through restoration projects and managing uses. Priorities would be to treat at-risk or fragmented habitats and non-native perennial and annual communities. This alternative would provide for active restoration using more tools and more intensive approaches in more areas than in Alternative V. Vegetation treatments could use native or non-native species depending on vegetation objectives. Alternative IV has been split into two sub-alternatives that differ with respect to size of the Inside Desert and Jarbidge Foothills ACECs; these ACECs would have larger boundaries in Alternative IV-A than in Alternative IV-B. Alternative V focuses on the restoration of habitats toward historic vegetation communities. In native plant communities, passive restoration approaches would be preferred. Active restoration would take place in non-native perennial and annual communities; treatments in non-native perennial communities would minimize soil disturbance. Restoration projects would focus on habitat for sage-grouse and other special status species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP revision would provide appropriate and updated management direction for the Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that responds to changes in resource condition and user demands. Under the preferred alternative, vegetation treatments would improve fire regime condition class (FRCC) on 373,000 acres; livestock grazing management would heighten improvement of FRCC. Approximately 4,000 acres of fuels treatments in the wildland urban interface (WUI) would be implemented; improvements in overall FRCC would also benefit WUI by reducing fire size in the long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit infrastructure for livestock management. Travel management would also be restrictive, but would continue to provide access to the majority of the area. JF - EPA number: 140230, Final EIS Volume I--693 pages, Volume II--932 pages, Volume III--996 pages, August 22, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PL-14/002+1610 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fish KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1669442112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBRIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBRIDGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAMISH INDIAN NATION TRUST ACQUISITION AND CASINO PROJECT, ANACORTES, SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1669442111; 16228 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to develop a casino facility using three parcels of land owned by the Samish Indian Nation in Anacortes, Washington is proposed. The three parcels total approximately 11.41 acres and encompass three contiguous tax lots southeast of the intersection of State Route 20 and Thompson Road. This draft EIS analyzes four development alternatives and the No Action alternative. Alternative A, the Proposed Project, includes approval of the Tribes application for the fee-to-trust acquisition and issuance of an initial reservation proclamation by the Department of the Interior. The foreseeable consequence of these actions would be that the Tribe develops a casino on the approximately 11.41 acre Marchs Point site located within the City. This alternative consists of construction of a 48,100-square-foot gaming facility with video lottery terminals (VLTs), as well as Class III gaming and other activities. Additional components include surface parking and stormwater protection and retention/detention facilities. The development would utilize the entire project site. Alternative B is similar to Alternative A in many aspects, entailing placement of the property into trust and issuance of a reservation proclamation. Under this alternative, however, the casino would be reduced in size to approximately 32,130 square feet and the size of the parking lot would be reduced. Because the smaller casino would not utilize the entire 11.41 acre site, a portion of the site on the eastern edge of the property (approximately 3.9 acres) would not be developed in the foreseeable future under Alternative B. Alternative C consists of transferring the property into federal trust and developing approximately 137,000 square-feet of retail and accessory commercial uses at the Marchs Point site. The development would utilize the entire project site. Alternative D consists of transferring approximately 2.4 acres of Tribal-owned property into trust as an initial reservation and the Tribe developing a casino on the site. The Flats site consists of approximately 2.4 acres of land located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Marchs Point site. Alternative D is a located between Tommy Thompson Trail and Fidalgo Bay Road in the City. This alternative consists of construction of a 48,100 square foot gaming facility with VLTs, and Class III gaming and other activities. Additional components include 300 spaces of surface parking. The development would utilize the entire 2.4-acre project site. Under the No Action alternative, neither the 11.41 acre Marchs Point site, nor the 2.4-acre Flats site would be placed into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, no reservation proclamation would be issued, and neither of the sites would be developed as described under the alternatives identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of any of the build alternatives would have a substantial beneficial impact on local and regional economies through the generation of direct, indirect, and induced output. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate substantial temporary and ongoing employment opportunities and wages in Skagit County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development alternatives could impact soils due to erosion during construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Any of the development alternatives would increase impervious surfaces on the Marchs Point Site and thereby generate increased stormwater runoff during rain events. Surface water quality could be adversely affected from if runoff from project facilities flushes trash, debris, oil, sediments, and grease into area surface waters. Construction emissions would affect air quality. The proposed action would affect approximately 0.05 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters of the US. The development of proposed action would remove ornamental trees that provide potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species and other birds of prey. Development of the proposed project would have direct adverse effects on traffic and circulation. JF - EPA number: 140233, Draft EIS--958 pages, August 22, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Emissions KW - Emission Control KW - Erosion KW - Water Quality KW - Washington KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1669442111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 16391026; 16206 AB - PURPOSE: A deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, regeneration, and restoration of native vegetation at the Fire Island National Seashore in Suffolk County, New York is proposed. Since the late 1960s, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population at Fire Island National Seashore (the Seashore) has expanded, leading to severe negative impacts on vegetation and cultural landscapes and an increase in undesirable human-deer interactions. Seashore staff have been working to understand and address issues linked to the deer population on Fire Island for 30 years. More recently, Seashore staff have turned their attention to the threat posed by deer to native vegetation in other natural zones of the Seashore and the cultural landscape of the William Floyd Estate. At current levels, deer browsing in the Sunken Forest and other vegetated areas of the Seashore is reducing the abundance and diversity of native vegetation, including important understory species. In some areas, current levels of browsing appear to be creating conditions for an increase in undesirable species. The loss of native vegetation and overall change in the vegetation communities could result in impacts on other wildlife species, such as groundnesting birds and small mammals using these areas for food and shelter. This draft EIS examines a no action alternative and three action alternatives. Alternative A (the no-action alternative) would continue to implement current management actions, policies, and monitoring efforts related to deer and their impacts. Current actions within the Seashore include limited public education and interpretation efforts, vegetation monitoring, and deer population and behavior surveys. All action alternatives (B, C, and D) would include an enhanced public education and outreach effort, fencing of the maritime holly forest within the Sunken Forest, securing the boundary fence at the William Floyd Estate, small-scale fencing to protect special-status species, increased vegetation monitoring, enhanced deer population and behavior monitoring, and close coordination with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Under alternative B, additional deer browsing management actions would include fencing of the historic core at the William Floyd Estate and rotational fencing of selected forest areas at the William Floyd Estate lower acreage. The fencing would be implemented in conjunction with fertility control of white-tailed deer to gradually reduce and then maintain the deer population at an appropriate density to achieve the plan objectives. Deer observed approaching humans within the Fire Island communities would be relocated to the Fire Island Wilderness. Under alternative C (the environmentally preferable alternative), additional actions would be taken to directly reduce and maintain the deer population at an appropriate deer density to allow for vegetation regeneration. Deer population reduction and maintenance would be implemented through a combination of sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia of individual deer (where necessary), and public hunting (within the Fire Island Wilderness only). Deer observed approaching humans within the Fire Island communities would be captured and euthanized to reduce the risk of negative human-deer interactions and prevent other deer from learning this behavior through observation. Alternative D (the NPS preferred alternative) would include a combination of actions from both alternatives B and C. The historic core at the William Floyd Estate would be fenced to exclude deer. The deer population on Fire Island and at the William Floyd Estate lower acreage would be reduced to an appropriate deer density to achieve the plan objectives through a combination of sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia of individual deer (where appropriate), and public hunting (within the Fire Island Wilderness only). Once reduced, the deer population could be maintained through fertility control or a continuation of actions used for direct reduction. Similar to alternative C, deer observed approaching humans within the Fire Island communities would be captured and euthanized. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in both beneficial and adverse impacts on vegetation, unique vegetation communities, and special-status plant species; wetlands; the whitetailed deer population; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; wilderness; cultural landscapes; visitor use and experience/recreation; Fire Island communities and adjacent landowners; public health and safety; and Seashore operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The adverse impact on wilderness would be significant if fertility control is used because the use of fertility control would be an active management strategy that would impose human control over natural deer biology, leave evidence of human intervention (i.e., marked deer), and would interfere intermittently with the opportunity for solitude. Adverse impacts on Seashore operations would be significant because considerable funding beyond current levels would be required for Seashore staff to ensure a safe and enjoyable visitor experience, protection of Seashore resources, maintenance of Seashore facilities, and Seashore administration. JF - EPA number: 140210, Draft EIS--416 pages, August 8, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Cultural Resources KW - National Parks KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Shores KW - Historic Sites KW - New York KW - Fire Island National Seashore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-08-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+ISLAND+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SUFFOLK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FIRE+ISLAND+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SUFFOLK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Patchogue, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 8, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Brine shrimp cyst concentrations in short cores from mono and Big Soda Lakes correlate well with changes in lake level and salinity AN - 1861103869; 781023-19 JF - Program and Abstracts - American Quaternary Association. Conference AU - Byrne, Roger AU - Champagne, Marie AU - Reidy, Liam AU - Rosen (USGs), Michael R AU - ? Y1 - 2014/08// PY - 2014 DA - August 2014 SP - 45 EP - 46 PB - American Quaternary Association, Seattle, WA VL - 23 SN - 0741-059X, 0741-059X UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1861103869?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Program+and+Abstracts+-+American+Quaternary+Association.+Conference&rft.atitle=Brine+shrimp+cyst+concentrations+in+short+cores+from+mono+and+Big+Soda+Lakes+correlate+well+with+changes+in+lake+level+and+salinity&rft.au=Byrne%2C+Roger%3BChampagne%2C+Marie%3BReidy%2C+Liam%3BRosen+%28USGs%29%2C+Michael+R%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Byrne&rft.aufirst=Roger&rft.date=2014-08-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=&rft.spage=45&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Program+and+Abstracts+-+American+Quaternary+Association.+Conference&rft.issn=0741059X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - AMQUA 2014 American Quaternary Associaiton 23rd biennial meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - WA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - AMQUAM ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the ability of tree-ring isotopes to improve our understanding of the climatic drivers of streamflow in the Upper Colorado River Basin AN - 1861103855; 781023-24 JF - Program and Abstracts - American Quaternary Association. Conference AU - Csank, Adam AU - Woodhouse, Connie A AU - Pederson (uSGS), Greg AU - Danloe, John AU - Leavitt, Steven W AU - ? Y1 - 2014/08// PY - 2014 DA - August 2014 SP - 51 EP - 52 PB - American Quaternary Association, Seattle, WA VL - 23 SN - 0741-059X, 0741-059X UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1861103855?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - AMQUA 2014 American Quaternary Associaiton 23rd biennial meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - WA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - AMQUAM ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANTIETAM NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, AND MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. AN - 16391173; 16198 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of white-tailed deer at Antietam National Battlefield, Monocacy National Battlefield, and Manassas National Battlefield Park in Maryland and Virginia are proposed. Action is needed at this time because the sizes of deer herds and deer population density have increased substantially over the years at all three battlefields. Deer browsing has resulted in damage to crops and associated vegetation that are key components of the cultural landscapes of the battlefields. In addition, chronic wasting disease (CWD) is proximate to the parks and represents an imminent threat to resources in the parks. Four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A (No Action), the existing deer management plan of monitoring, data management, research, and use of protective caging and repellents in landscaped areas would continue; no new deer management actions would be taken. All parks would continue with opportunistic and targeted surveillance for CWD. Under Alternative B, the main focus of deer management would be the use of a combination of nonlethal actions including the construction of large-scale deer exclosures (fencing) for the purposes of forest regeneration and the use of nonsurgical reproductive control of does to restrict population growth, using an agent that meets established criteria. Alternative B would also include techniques such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning to prevent adverse deer impacts. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting, with a very limited use of capture and euthanasia of individual deer if needed in those few circumstances where sharpshooting would not be considered appropriate due to safety concerns. Plans for achieving desired deer density would involve the removal of a total of 550 deer at Antietam, 659 deer at Monocacy, and 1,635 deer at Manassas over four to five years. Alternative D would combine elements from Alternatives B and C: sharpshooting and very limited capture/euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control methods if these are available and feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. Alternative D would also include techniques such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning. All of the action alternatives include a CWD management plan that provides for a longer-term response to CWD when it is in or within five miles of the parks. The plan includes lethal removal of deer to substantially reduce deer density, because high population densities generally support greater rates of disease transmission and have been found to be positively correlated with the prevalence of CWD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Effective management would help preserve and restore important cultural landscapes and agricultural viability within the battlefield grounds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: For Alternatives A and B, reducing deer herd numbers based solely on reproductive control would take a substantial amount of time and adverse impacts on vegetation, the white-tailed deer population, other wildlife and wildlife habitat would continue. For Alternatives C and D, implementation of sharpshooting or capture and euthanasia at the parks may disturb some visitors. JF - EPA number: 140202, Final EIS--698 pages, August 1, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Antietam National Battlefield KW - Maryland KW - Monocacy National Battlefield KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANTIETAM+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+AND+MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARYLAND+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ANTIETAM+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+AND+MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARYLAND+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sharpsburg, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ESCAMBIA, SANTA ROSA, AND OKALOOSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA AND JACKSON AND HARRISON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 1654932251; 16187 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 final 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. JF - EPA number: 140191, Final EIS--562 pages, July 18, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/1654932251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-07-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+ISLAND+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+ISLAND+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 - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 18, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 58 (SR-58) KRAMER JUNCTION EXPRESSWAY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16380835; 16191 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realigning of a 13.3-mile segment of State Route 58 (SR 58) centered on Kramer Junction, where SR 58 intersects with U.S. Highway 395 (US 395), in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. The project area is in the western portion of the Mojave Desert and open land lies within one-third mile in each direction from Kramer Junction. Much of the open land south and southwest of Kramer Junction falls within the 470-square-mile Edwards Air Force Base installation. SR 58 is a major east-west transportation corridor with a high percentage of truck traffic transporting goods in and out of the state. The segment of SR 58 within the project limits is currently a non-standard two-lane highway between a four-lane freeway to the west and a four-lane expressway to the east. This two-lane segment includes an at-grade signalized intersection at SR 58/US 395 (Kramer Junction), an at-grade crossing of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad west of that intersection, and numerous uncontrolled at-grade driveway and street access points. The two-lane segment operates at a deficient level of service during peak hours and vehicles are required to stop and wait for trains crossing SR 58. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative (Alternative 4) are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would realign and widen SR 58 from 0.4 miles west of the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to a point that is approximately 7.5 miles east of US 395 and construct a railroad grade separation and an interchange at the SR 58/US 395 Junction. Typical cross sections of the proposed SR 58 four-lane expressway would consist of a 400-foot right-of-way (ROW), 100-foot median, 10-foot outside shoulders, and five-foot inside shoulders. The 0.3-mile segment of US 395 adjacent to SR 58 would be widened from two lanes to four lanes plus a left-turn lane. Dual crossing structures (one for eastbound vehicles and the other for westbound vehicles) would grade-separate mainline SR 58 traffic from US 395 and would be 151 feet in length and have a total height of 30 feet. The interchange ramps from SR 58 would have a single merge/diverge lane that transitions to two 12-foot lanes at the connection to US 395. Stop signs would be installed at the termini of off-ramps. An additional set of dual crossing structures would grade-separate mainline SR 58 traffic from the BNSF railroad line and would have a maximum length of 611 feet and a height of 21.5 feet. Alternative 1 would be located to the north of the existing SR 58 and would involve the construction of four diamond ramps at US 395. The SR 58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad would be located 2.5 miles to the east of Kramer Junction. Alternative 1A would be located to the north of the existing SR 58 and would involve the construction of a spread diamond and cloverleaf interchange at US 395. The SR 58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad would be located 2.5 miles to the east of Kramer Junction. Under Alternative 2, the new facility would be located adjacent to the existing SR 58 and four diamond ramps would be constructed at US 395. The SR 58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad would be located 3.9 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Alternative 3 would be located to the north of the existing SR 58 and would include four diamond ramps at US 395. The SR 58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad would be located 2.6 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Construction cost estimates for Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3 are $149.2, $147.4, $332.2, and $196.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expressway project would improve east-west mobility by reducing congestion and maintaining an uninterrupted and consistent facility between economic and community centers. Separation of rail and vehicular traffic would eliminate traffic conflicts and delays. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would fragment and destroy wildlife habitat. Construction would result in the loss of 529 to 543 acres of habitat suitable for the desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. Habitat loss would also affect burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Le Contes thrasher, and American badger. JF - EPA number: 140195, Final EIS Volume I--798 pages, Volume II--166 pages, July 18, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Desert Land KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16380835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HAWAII+VOLCANOES+NATIONAL+PARK+PLAN+FOR+PROTECTING+AND+RESTORING+NATIVE+ECOSYSTEMS+BY+MANAGING+NON-NATIVE+UNGULATES%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 18, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER SAGE-GROUSE BI-STATE DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT, HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, ALPINE AND MONO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA; AND DOUGLAS, ESMERALDA, LYON, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA (REVISION TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2013). AN - 1654932256; 16186 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carson City and Battle Mountain District resource management plans to conserve, enhance, and/or restore habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the greater sage-grouse Bi-state distinct population segment (DPS) in Nevada and California are proposed. The Bi-State DPS includes sage-grouse that occur in portions of Carson City, Lyon, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Douglas counties in Nevada. It also includes sage-grouse in portions of Alpine, Inyo, and Mono counties in California. The study area encompasses over five million acres of federal and private land. The area affected by the proposed action includes 648,800 acres of mapped habitat on National Forest Service (NFS) and BLM-administrated lands. Major threats identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with regard to actions authorized on public lands within the amendment area are habitat modification, including modification from infrastructure (fences, powerlines, and roads), recreation, mining, energy development, grazing, fire, invasive species, noxious weeds, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and climate change. The Forest Service and BLM issued a draft EIS in August 2013 but decided to issue this draft revision after the USFWS requested an additional six months of analysis. This revised draft includes a modified proposed action, an additional of an alternative to the proposed action, and a modified plan amendment area boundary. This revised draft considers a no action alternative and two action alternatives. Under Alternative B (Proposed Action), The Toiyabe National Forest LRMP and BLM RMP amendments would recognize valid existing rights. Lands addressed in the LRMP and RMP amendments would be national forest system lands and public lands (including surface-estate, split-estate lands) managed by the Forest Service and BLM, respectively, in habitats of the Bi-state DPS. The LRMP and RMP amendments would apply only to Federal lands administered by either the Forest Service or the BLM, respectively. Alternative B also establishes the lands within the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred under the Nevada Enhancement Act as being under the management direction of the Toiyabe Forest Plan, with allocation to the Bridgeport Pinyon/Juniper Management Area #6 and as amended by this alternative. Alternative C, the Conservation Alternative, proposes goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines that address the purpose and need of this plan amendment by focusing on a more conservation-conservative-approach to land management than the proposed action by including more requirements for project design and establishing a more detailed schedule for accomplishments. This alternative allows for the analysis and disclosure of a range of methods to achieve the purpose and need of providing regulatory mechanisms to reduce, eliminate, or minimize threats to Bi-state DPS habitat on Federal lands. The regulatory mechanisms would apply to Bi-state DPS habitat, described below, on Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the plan amendment area boundary. Alternative C also establishes the lands within the plan amendment area boundary that were transferred under the Nevada Enhancement Act as being under the management direction of the Toiyabe Forest Plan, with allocation to the Bridgeport Pinyon/Juniper Management Area #6 (see appendix B for map) and as amended by this alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the recent "warranted, but precluded" Endangered Species Act finding from the USFWS by implementing changes in the management and conservation of the Bi-state DPS habitats within the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed standards may result in additional costs for energy and mining projects as well as changes to the permitted seasons of livestock use, grazing, and location of watering and handling facilities. In addition, six herd management areas/wild horse and burro territories could be impacted by new timing limitations and the need to minimize disturbance of habitat. Changes in recreation settings and opportunities are expected to be minor. JF - EPA number: 140190, Revised Draft EIS--201 pages, July 11, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest KW - Nevada 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/1654932256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+BI-STATE+DISTINCT+POPULATION+SEGMENT+FOREST+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALPINE+AND+MONO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%3B+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+ESMERALDA%2C+LYON%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2013%29.&rft.title=GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+BI-STATE+DISTINCT+POPULATION+SEGMENT+FOREST+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALPINE+AND+MONO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%3B+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+ESMERALDA%2C+LYON%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28REVISION+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2013%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sparks, Nevada; DA N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 11, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BREVARD AND VOLUSIA COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 1654932252; 16184 AB - PURPOSE: A General Management Plan for the Canaveral National Seashore in Brevard and Volusia counties, Florida is proposed. The national seashore contains 24 miles of pristine, undeveloped beach along the Atlantic coast and is comprised of nearly 58,000 acres of barrier island, open lagoon, coastal hammock, pine flat-woods, and offshore waters. The seashore is prime habitat for many threatened and endangered species, and provides nesting beaches for several thousand protected marine turtles. Mosquito Lagoon, which encompasses more than two-thirds of the national seashore, is designated an estuary of national significance. The national seashore is managed by the National Park Service in partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which owns approximately two-thirds of the national seashore, and the adjacent Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The current management plan was approved in 1982 and amended in 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives propose a different configuration of seven management zones within the national seashore based on the concept for each alternative. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), the national seashore would be managed to preserve and enhance the natural and historic landscape features associated with the national seashores eastern Florida coastal barrier island system. Emphasis would be placed on retaining the seashores relatively undeveloped character and providing uncrowded experiences by dispersing visitors via shuttle service or canoe, kayak, and bicycle trails. Under Alternative C, the national seashore would be managed as a place where visitors would explore and experience a wide range of opportunities that would be designed to provide an in-depth understanding of the natural and cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. Alternative modes of access to land- and water-based natural and cultural features would be available. Under Alternative D, the national seashore would be managed to focus on enhancing the existing lands, resources, and facilities. Outdoor recreational and educational opportunities that are consistent with preserving the national seashores natural and cultural resources would be promoted. There would be limited facility development. Coordination with partners would be increased to provide additional educational opportunities and programs for visitors and enhanced monitoring of Canaveral National Seashore resources. One-time facility costs associated with implementing alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $19.4, $35.8, and $17.5 million, respectively. One-time non-facility costs are estimated at $2.1 million for each action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences over the next 20 years. Designation of a nonmotorized zone and a slow speed zone for boats in Mosquito Lagoon would benefit wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and vehicle emissions would have adverse impacts on air quality. Construction and localized increases in impervious surfaces would cause negligible to minor impacts to soils, water resources, floodplains and wetlands. Under the preferred alternative, visitor access near key habitat areas could have adverse impacts to wildlife and vegetation. Minor adverse impacts to soundscapes, noise, and air quality would occur in the long-term. Increased future visitation may also have long-term, minor adverse impacts due to crowding. JF - EPA number: 140188, Final EIS--452 pages, July 11, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dunes KW - Estuaries KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Lagoons KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Canaveral National Seashore KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-626, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1654932252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANAVERAL+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BREVARD+AND+VOLUSIA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CANAVERAL+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BREVARD+AND+VOLUSIA+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Titusville, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (FINAL PROGRAMMTIC AND PHASE III EARLY RESTORATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT), ALABAMA, FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND TEXAS. AN - 1652354016; 16178 AB - PURPOSE: This final programmatic EIS considers programmatic alternatives to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The April 20, 2010 explosion and sinking of the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon is the largest oil spill in US history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas was also released to the environmental as a result of the spill. The scope, nature and magnitude of the Spill was unprecedented, causing impacts to coastal and oceanic ecosystems ranging from the deep ocean floor, through the oceanic water column, to the highly productive coastal habitats of the northern Gulf of Mexico, including estuaries, shorelines and coastal marsh. Affected resources include ecologically, recreationally, and commercially important species and their habitats in the Gulf and along the coastal areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. A set of project types for inclusion in programmatic alternatives, consistent with the desire to seek a diverse set of projects providing benefits to a broad array of potentially injured resources was developed. Ultimately, this process results in the inclusion of 12 project types in the programmatic alternatives evaluated for Early Restoration, including: (1) create and improve wetlands; (2) protect shorelines and reduce erosion; (3) restore barrier islands and beaches; (4) restore and protect submerged aquatic vegetation; (5) conserve habitat; (6) restore oysters; (7) restore and protect finfish and shellfish; (8) restore and protect birds; (9) restore and protect sea turtles; (10) enhance public access to natural resources for recreational use; (11) enhance recreational experiences; and (12) promote environmental and cultural stewardship, education and outreach. While the 12 project types can be combined in numerous ways to develop programmatic alternatives, the following four programming alternatives were considered: (1) no action; (2) contribute to restoring habitats and living coastal and marine resources (project types 1-9); (3) contribute to providing and enhancing recreation opportunities (project types 10-12); and (4) contribute to restoring habitats, living coastal and marine resources, and recreational opportunities (project types 1-12). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development and evaluation of Early Restoration projects for the potential use of the remaining funds available for Early Restoration would be examined. A range of Early Restoration alternatives and project types would be developed that could be applied at this time and in future phases of Early Restoration planning. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of equipment in submerged substrates to excavate material for wetland creation can disturb sediments. This adverse effect would be minor and short-term because actions would be localized and generally would not extend beyond the construction period. Some short-term minor adverse effects could occur if resources, including oysters, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, benthic communities, and pelagic microfaunal communities are present in the construction area. Possible impacts could include increased turbidity, reduction of water quality, noise pollution, and disruption to the water column and habitat. Equipment usage and boating traffic in construction areas could pose a minor short-term adverse effect by increasing the risk of water quality contamination during the construction period. JF - EPA number: 140182, Final EIS--2,955 pages, Executive Summary--46 pages, June 27, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Oil Spills KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Drilling KW - Marine Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Fish KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Environmental Justice KW - Wetlands KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Recreation Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Natural Gas KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Florida KW - Alabama KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1652354016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEEPWATER+HORIZON+OIL+SPILL+NATURAL+RESOURCE+DAMAGE+ASSESSMENT+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMTIC+AND+PHASE+III+EARLY+RESTORATION+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+AND+TEXAS.&rft.title=DEEPWATER+HORIZON+OIL+SPILL+NATURAL+RESOURCE+DAMAGE+ASSESSMENT+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMTIC+AND+PHASE+III+EARLY+RESTORATION+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+AND+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 27, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 1652354015; 16177 AB - PURPOSE: Revisions to the December 2008 final EIS for the Northwest Area Water Supply Project in North Dakota are proposed. The Project has been under consideration and partial construction since 2002 and if completed, would resolve long-standing water supply and water quality problems in a ten-county area in northwestern North Dakota. The proposed action is to construct a project that provides drinking water to local communities and rural water systems in northwestern North Dakota, including the City of Minot. The project would supply water to specific delivery points. Each community or rural water system would be responsible for connecting to the distribution line and delivering water through their water system to end users. This draft supplemental EIS examines a no action alternative and four action alternatives. The no action alternative describes future water supply and changes in the affected environment without additional reclamation funding for the project. The action alternatives fall into two categories: those using only inbasin water sources (Souris River and groundwater) and those proposing to use water from the Missouri River. The inbasin alternatives include the groundwater with recharge and the groundwater with recharge and the Souris River alternatives. The groundwater with recharge alternative would use the existing Minot and Sundre aquifer wellfields as the primary sources of water for the project. The Souris River would be used to provide artificial recharge to the aquifers. The groundwater would be conveyed to and treated at the Minot Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and distributed to the project members through the bulk distribution system. The groundwater with recharge and the Souris River alternative would use existing Minot and Sundre aquifer wellfields as the primary sources of water, with the Souris River providing artificial recharge to the aquifers, as well as providing a direct supply of water to the Minot WTP during certain periods. Groundwater would be conveyed to the Minot WTP, blended with Souris River water when available, and treated and distributed to project members through the bulk distribution system. The Missouri River alternatives are the Missouri River and Conjunctive Use alternative and the Missouri River and Groundwater alternative. The Missouri River and Conjunctive Use alternative would withdraw water from Lake Sakakawea, convey it to the Minot WTP, and blend it with Souris River water and groundwater from the Minot and Sundre aquifers. Following treatment at the Minot WTP, water would be distributed to project members through the bulk distribution system. This alternative includes two options for a new intake and pump station at Lake Sakakawea and five options for a Biota WTP in Max, North Dakota. The Missouri River and Groundwater alternative would also withdraw water from Lake Sakakawea as the primary water supply. Water would be conveyed to the Minot WTP and blended with groundwater from the Minot and Sundre aquifers. No water would be withdrawn from the Souris River. Following treatment at the Minot WTP, water would be distributed to project members through the bulk distribution system. This alternative includes the same two options for a new intake and pump station at Lake Sakakawea and five options for a Biota WTP as the Missouri River and Conjunctive use Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Adverse impacts to flows and water quality in the Souris River would be unavoidable for alternatives using Souris River water. Changes would be greatest with the two inbasin alternatives that use Souris River to recharge aquifers or for direct use. More frequent periods of low to near-zero flow in the Souris from inbasin alternatives withdrawals would reduce habitat quality and availability and could degrade water quality with adverse effects on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Both inbasin alternatives would withdraw water from the Souris River between March and August, which could cause localized effects on wetlands and riparian areas during dry and normal conditions. Changes would be most pronounced during dry and normal flows. JF - EPA number: 140181, Draft Supplemental EIS--462 pages, Appendices--1,038 pages, Executive Summary--32 pages, June 27, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lakes KW - Water Treatments KW - North Dakota KW - Souris River KW - Missouri River KW - Lake Sakakawea KW - Boundary Water Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1652354015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 27, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREEN RIVER DIVERSION REHABILITATION PROJECT, EMERY AND GRAND COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16394771; 16173 AB - PURPOSE: The Green River/Tusher Diversion was constructed in the early 1900s and has been modified over the years to maintain the structure. During the 2010/2011 flood events, flows in the Green River caused severe damage to the diversion structure, compromising its structural integrity. In the event of diversion failure, water service to three irrigation canals, the City of Green River, a historic irrigation water delivery system, and one hydropower plant would be eliminated. This final EIS examines one no action and two action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would consist of using no Federal money to rehabilitate the Green River Diversion. The Replace in Place alternative would replace the diversion at the same location or within close proximity to the existing diversion. This alternative also would: (1) upgrade the structure to current engineering standards and technology; (2) raise the arc-shaped crest of the weir by one foot; and (3) include one new gate for water control and sluicing. This alternative would also require the temporary use of approximately 5.5 acres of BLM-managed public lands, 14.5 acres of state sovereign lands, and 2.3 acres of private lands for staging and access during construction. The Replace in Place with Passages alternative would demolish the existing diversion and install a new diversion in the same location. This alternative would replace the existing diversion along the current alignment and upgrade the structure to current engineering standards and technology. This alternative would include two new gates for water control and sluicing; and a new bulkhead gate structure and 80-foot raceway to the water wheel on the east side at the Hastings Ranch to maintain existing water rights. This alternative includes the use of cobbles and gravel that have been deposited into the river channel below the diversion and at the confluence of Tusher Wash. This alternative would also require the temporary use of approximately 5.5 acres of BLM-managed public lands, 14.5 acres of state sovereign lands (Green River itself), and 2.3 acres of private lands for staging and access during construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation the diversion would directly result in irrigation canals and a hydropower plant remaining usable for the water rights holders. The project would rehabilitate the diversion due to damage caused by past flood events, upgrade the diversion infrastructure to current design standards, and maintain the level of water delivery to the existing water rights holders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Four federally-listed fish species are known to use the project area: Bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptycholcheilus lucius), Humpback chub (Gila cypha), and Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Passage for these fish would be impacted during low flows. There is a potential for soil disturbance and sediment into the Green River during construction. There would be a direct impact to 1.4 acres of open waters. JF - EPA number: 140177, Final EIS--666 pages, Appendices--624 pages, June 27, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Rivers KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Resources Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Dams KW - Canals KW - Power Plants KW - Fish KW - Soils KW - Sediment KW - Utah KW - Green River KW - Flood Control Act of 1950, Project Authorization KW - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BENTON%2C+KITTITAS%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+INTEGRATED+WATER+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BENTON%2C+KITTITAS%2C+KLICKITAT+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Boise, Idaho; DA N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 27, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1651360548; 16164 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) to provide direction over the next 20 years for Fort Matanzas National Monument, St. Johns County, Florida is proposed. Established in 1924, and expanded in 1935 and 1948, the Monument contains a 1740 Spanish fort sited on Rattlesnake Island in a commanding position over Matanzas Inlet, the southern mouth of the Matanzas River. Today, the park consists of nearly 300 acres on Rattlesnake and Anastasia islands, some 14 miles south of the historic city St. Augustine. These two islands lie along the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and the Matanzas estuary. Two issues helped to steer the development of preliminary alternatives for the GMP: a 1937 visitor center that is inadequate to provide services to a visitor population that has more than doubled since the mid-1990s; and off-road driving on the Anastasia Island beach. Despite prior vehicular access to the beaches south of the Matanzas ramp on Anastasia Island, the National Park Service (NPS) began the process of closing the beach to vehicular access in October 2009. The closure will continue unless and until such time that authority to permit off road driving on the Fort Matanzas beach is granted. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, the primary interpretive themes of the park would continue to be the fort, its construction from local coquina stone, and its strategic location relative to the defense of St. Augustine. However, there would be increased interpretation of the natural environment as well. Minimal development of new facilities would consist of expanded parking. Adaptive reuse of the existing New Deal era visitor center with minimal changes to the natural environment would be explored. Because this structure and the adjacent building as well as the surrounding landscape, roads, drives, and parking areas have been included in the National Register of Historic Places, all future planning regarding the use of these structures and facilities would incorporate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Driving off established park roads and parking lots would continue to be prohibited. Under Alternative C, the interpretive concept would combine the history of the fortified outpost with its establishment as a National Monument and the further development and evolution of the park to its present day configuration. There would be a focus on the north end of the Anastasia Island section of the park with the visitor center and interpretation of the land donations and other activities of St. Augustine organizations to restore and commemorate the fort. Some modification of the natural environment would accommodate new trails, expanded parking lots, and visitor circulation patterns. In addition, the NPS would seek authority to permit driving on the Anastasia Island beach through the promulgation of a special regulation followed by the preparation of an off-road vehicle plan and an EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP would provide comprehensive guidance for maintaining natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences at Fort Matanzas National Monument. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parking expansion would have a minor impact on soils and vegetation. The historic and administrative structures currently maintained by the NPS would remain within the 100-year floodplain as there is no practicable alternative. JF - EPA number: 140168, Final EIS--237 pages, June 13, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beachces KW - Coastal Zones KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Facilities Management KW - Florida KW - Fort Matanzas National Monument KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651360548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+MATANZAS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+JOHNS+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+MATANZAS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+JOHNS+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Forest Service, St. Augustine, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 13, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEX TEXAS LAUNCH SITE, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 1650957329; 16158 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of licenses and/or experimental permits that would allow Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) to launch the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy orbital vertical launch vehicles and a variety of reusable suborbital launch vehicles from a site on privately owned property in Cameron County, Texas is proposed. Proposed operations would consist of up to 12 launches per year with a maximum of two Falcon Heavy launches, through the year 2022. To support these launches, SpaceX has proposed the construction of a vertical launch area and a control center area at a site approximately 17 miles east-northeast of the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport and five miles south of South Padre Island. All facilities would be constructed through private funding, on currently undeveloped privately-owned property that would be purchased or leased by SpaceX. In addition, a new underground power line would be installed in the State Highway 4 road right-of-way from the control center area to the vertical launch area. All Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches would be expected to have commercial payloads, including satellites or experimental payloads. In addition to standard payloads, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy may also carry a capsule, such as the SpaceX Dragon capsule. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy use liquid fuels including liquid oxygen and rocket propellant-1. All launch trajectories would be to the east over the Gulf of Mexico and sonic booms generated by launch events would impact the ocean surface 40 miles off the coast and would not be audible on land. The majority of launches would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. However, there could be one nighttime launch per year. SpaceX proposes to limit public access at two pre-defined checkpoints on State Highway 4 for up to 15 hours on launch day, with six hours being the closure time for a nominal launch. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would respond to the statutory direction from Congress under the Commercial Space Launch Act to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launch and reentry activities by the private sector in order to strengthen and expand U.S. space transportation infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in direct impact to 3.3 acres of wetlands and indirect impact to 2.9 acres of wetlands. The proposed action would displace 15.7 acres of upland habitat and is likely to adversely affect the piping plover and its critical habitat, the northern aplomado falcon, and the jaguarundi and ocelot. The proposed vertical launch and control center areas would likely have a significant impact on visual resources. Three historic properties within the five-mile area of potential influence may be physically damaged from vibrations caused by high noise levels from a Falcon vehicle launch. Nighttime launch operations would result in considerably higher levels of light emissions than those currently present from Boca Chica Village. JF - EPA number: 140162, Final EIS Volume I--392 pages, Volume II--906, Volume III--278 pages, June 6, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Birds KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Spacecraft KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 2011, 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/1650957329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEX+TEXAS+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+CAMERON+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SPACEX+TEXAS+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+CAMERON+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 6, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGINIA AVENUE TUNNEL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1651360547; 16165 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of the District of Columbia is proposed. CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) owns the tunnel which is located beneath eastbound Virginia Avenue SE from 2nd Street SE to 9th Street SE; Virginia Avenue Park between 9th and 11th Streets; and the 11th Street Bridge right-of-way. The tunnel is also aligned on the south side of Interstate 695 (I-695), previously known as I-295. The tunnel portals are located a short distance west of 2nd Street SE and a short distance east of 11th Street SE. The tunnel and rail lines are part of CSXs eastern seaboard freight rail corridor, which connects Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states. The CSX proposal includes the complete reconstruction of the 4,000-foot tunnel to transform it from a single railroad track into a two-track configuration and provide the necessary vertical clearance (minimum 21 feet) to allow double-stack intermodal container freight train operations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, the tunnel would be rebuilt in generally the same location, except it would be aligned seven feet to the south of the existing tunnel center line. It would be rebuilt using protected open trench construction methods. During construction, freight trains would be temporarily routed through a protected open trench outside the existing tunnel (runaround track). The runaround track would be aligned to the south and generally parallel to the existing tunnel, and would be located below street level. Under Alternative 3, the existing tunnel would be replaced with two new permanent tunnels constructed sequentially. A new parallel south side tunnel would be built first as trains continue operating in the existing tunnel. After the south side tunnel is completed, train operations would switch over to the new tunnel and the existing Virginia Avenue Tunnel would be demolished and rebuilt. With the exception of operating in a protected open trench for 230 feet immediately east of the 2nd Street portal (within the Virginia Avenue SE segment between 2nd and 3rd Streets SE), trains would operate in enclosed tunnels throughout construction. The two tunnels would be separated by a center wall aligned 25 feet south of the existing tunnel centerline, between 2nd and 9th Streets SE. Alternative 4 would result in a new partitioned tunnel with two permanent tracks. It would be aligned 17 feet south of the existing tunnels centerline. During the period of construction, a protected open trench would accommodate both construction activities and train operations. Each build alternative would include the restoration of Virginia Avenue SE, and other areas affected by construction, including Virginia Avenue Park and the Marine Corp Recreation Facility. Total costs for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are estimated at $175 million, $168 million and $208 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addressing the structural and operational deficiencies of the century-old Virginia Avenue Tunnel would preserve the ability to provide efficient freight transportation services in the District of Columbia, the Washington metropolitan area and the eastern seaboard. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would require the short-term closure of I-695 ramps and the temporary closure of Virginia Avenue SE between 2nd and 9th Streets SE. Construction noise would exceed impact criteria at noise sensitive receptors representing Capitol Quarter and Capper Senior Apartments. All three build alternatives would demolish the existing tunnel, an historic structure eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The impacts to the LEnfant Plan, Capitol Hill Historic District, and Virginia Avenue Park would be temporary, and although they would constitute a Section 4(f) use, the conclusion of construction would allow for the complete restoration of these resources. The duration of construction would be substantially longer under Alternative 4. JF - EPA number: 140169, June 13, 2014); Final EIS--437 pages, Appendices--2,112 pages, EPA PY - 2014 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-13-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651360547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2015-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: EPA N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G LEASE AND MINE PLAN MODIFICATION PROJECT, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDHAO. AN - 1650139450; 16152 AB - PURPOSE: The lease and mine modifications for the Panels F and G Mining and Reclamation Plan at the J.R. Simplot Smoky Canyon Mine in southeast Idaho are proposed. Smoky Canyon mining and milling operations were authorized in 1982 by records of decision (RODs) issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the mine and reclamation plan (M&RP) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for related off-lease activities. The adjacent mine pits are referred to as Panels A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Mining operations began in Panel A in 1984. The BLM and USFS published the Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2007 and issued RODs in 2008 approving the M&RP for Panels F and G subject to special conditions. However, at the time the 2008 RODs were issued, it was determined neither the BLM nor the USFS had the legal authority to approve the expansion. The BLM regulations were revised in 2009 to allow the modification of a lease for purposes of permanent disposal of overburden materials if specific criteria are met and, as anticipated by the 2008 BLM ROD, Simplot has applied for a lease modification to accommodate an East ODA expansion, which would allow for the maximum amount of ore to be recovered from their phosphate lease. This draft EIS examines two action alternatives and one no action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the decisions from the 2008 RODs would continue to govern development of the phosphate resources of Panels F and G. Under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, the proposed Panel G lease modification area would be 240 acres and the size of the East ODA expansion would be reduced. The location of the disturbance would be within the footprint of the Proposed Action. During reclamation, approximately 138 acres would be covered with a GCLL and 257 acres would be covered with a geologic store and release cover. The only difference between Alternative 1 and the Proposed Action is the use of a mixed cover. Under Alternative 1, approximately 143 acres would be covered with a GCLL and 250 acres would be covered with the geologic store and release cover approved by the 2008 RODs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simplot mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the Proposed Action, geology and mineral resources at Panel G would be directly affected by the development of the South and East ODAs through the relocation of overburden from the pit to these expanded ODA locations. The proposed Panel G component of the Proposed Action would change infiltration characteristics (and thus, groundwater recharge) compared to the approved Panel G M&RP. Compared to the approved M&RP for Panel G, the Proposed Action would result in a greater disturbance area that would have runoff directed to stormwater control features (ponds and ditches), thus potentially incrementally reducing runoff that reaches Deer Creek and the Wells Canyon drainage and intermittent stream. The direct impact from vegetation removal would be predominately long-term and within mainly aspen and aspen/conifer vegetation cover types. JF - EPA number: 140156, Draft EIS--432 pages, May 30, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2013-0028-EIS KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Fertilizers KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho 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/1650139450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MODIFIED BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT (PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT CACA 048811), RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1650139445; 16157 AB - PURPOSE: Amendments to the previously approved Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) right-of-way (ROW) grant are proposed. The BSPP received a ROW grant in 2010 to construct a 1,000-megawatt (MW) solar energy generating plant utilizing thermal parabolic trough technology on 6,831 acres of public land located near the City of Blythe in Riverside County, California. Palo Verde Solar I, LLC, the current owner and holder of the BSPP ROW grant, has relinquished a portion of the original ROW and is requesting a variance from the existing approval to amend the grant to convert the BSPP to photovoltaic technology, reduce the size of the solar plant site, and reconfigure the solar plant site to allow transmission and access road corridors through the BSPP site for two projects proposed to the north. Beginning in December 2011, Palo Verde Solar Is parent companies both in the US and Europe filed for bankruptcy. NextEra Blythe Solar, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LCC, purchased the un-built assets of the Approved Project on July 12, 2012. The BSPP site is located in a rural area of the Colorado Desert in unincorporated Riverside County, California. The site is located approximately eight miles west of the City of Blythe, approximately 32 miles east of the town of Desert Center, California, and approximately three miles north of the Interstate 10 freeway. This final EIS analyzes approval of the Grant Holders Level 3 variance request, which involves the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of PV technology instead of the approved thermal parabolic trough technology authorized under the 2010 ROW grant for the Approved Project. The Modified Project would generate less power within a smaller footprint than the Approved Project, i.e., a nominal capacity of 485 MW on 4,138 acres of the previously approved BLM-administered public land as opposed to the 1,000 MW on 6,381 acres authorized under the existing ROW grant. In addition, the solar plant site for the Modified Project would be reconfigured to allow transmission and access road corridors through the BSPP site for shared use with other approved and proposed projects, including (two projects located to the north: the BLM-approved McCoy Solar Energy Project and the proposed EDF Renewables McCoy Soleil project). This final EIS also analyzes denial of the Level 3 variance request. This is the No Action Alternative for purposes of this final EIS. Under this Alternative, the Level 3 variance request would be denied by the BLM and the Grant Holder would be left with the approximately 4,433-acre ROW grant remaining after the partial relinquishment by the Grant Holder on March 7, 2013, which, as scaled, would be sufficient to develop approximately 650 MW of the approved 1,000 MW of energy using solar thermal parabolic trough technology. The current ROW approval after relinquishment represents approximately 65 percent of the Approved Project analyzed in the 2010 PA/FEIS and 2010 ROD. All other aspects of the project under Alternative after the partial relinquishment would be the same as the Approved Project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 4,138 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. JF - EPA number: 140161, Final EIS--434 pages, Appendices--2,651 pages, May 30, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/PL-2014/015+1793 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1650139445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MODIFIED+BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT+%28PROPOSED+AMENDMENT+TO+RIGHT-OF-WAY+GRANT+CACA+048811%29%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MODIFIED+BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT+%28PROPOSED+AMENDMENT+TO+RIGHT-OF-WAY+GRANT+CACA+048811%29%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1650139444; 16156 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a fishery management plan (FMP) to guide fishery management decisions over the next five to 10 years for Biscayne National Park (BISC) in Homestead, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Located in southeastern Florida, the 173,000-acre BISC is 95 percent marine and includes a diversity of habitats, including essential fish habitat (EFH) for numerous species of ecologically important fish and invertebrates. BISC's boundaries range from the eastern continental shoreline across Biscayne Bay and numerous key islands to the 60-foot depth contour of the Atlantic Ocean. Recreational and commercial fishing occur in both bay and ocean waters. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would maintain the status quo, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, minor changes from current management strategies would maintain fisheries resources and habitat conditions at or above current levels and additional actions would be taken only if park fisheries resources or recreational fishing experience decline. Alternative 3 would implement moderate changes from current management strategies through moderate decreases in recreational harvest, limits on spearfishing, and establishment of a recreational permit system. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would rebuild and conserve park fisheries resources through further reduction in fishing-related habitat impacts. The number of commercial fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit system. Management actions would be enacted to increase the abundance and average size of targeted fish and invertebrate species by at least 20 percent over current conditions. Initially these actions would focus on frequently harvested species such as grouper, snapper, hogfish, and spiny lobster. Future efforts could include less-impacted species such as grunts and barracuda, and catch-and-release species such as bonefish and permit. BISC would seek to establish coral reef protection areas (CRPAs) to delineate coral reef habitat on which lobster and crab traps could not be deployed. Alternative 5 would seek to restore park fisheries resources more substantially and would require the most stringent fishing regulations among the alternatives under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would ensure conservation and management of BISC's fisheries and fishery resources and could reverse the decline from historical levels due increased fishing pressure. Damage to benthic habitats from crab traps would decrease. The increase in size and abundance of targeted species and the reduction in marine debris would result in a positive effect on snorkeling and scuba diving experience. The establishment of CRPAs would result in a decrease in damage to reef habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, manatees and sea turtles would continue to be negatively affected by boat traffic. new regulations would impact commercial fishing activities as no new commercial fisheries would be allowed to develop and future growth of commercial fisherman would be prevented. On a long-term basis an eventual complete cessation of commercial fishing within the park would be predicted with socioeconomic consequences to individuals and communities. JF - EPA number: 140160, Final EIS--303 pages, May 30, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Regulations KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-199, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1650139444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-02-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1648571228; 16149 AB - PURPOSE: A plan for the management of off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore in Carteret County, North Carolina is presented. Located approximately 3 miles off the mainland coast in the central coastal area of North Carolina, the Seashore occupies more than 29,000 acres of land and water from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet. The 56 miles of barrier islands consist mostly of wide, bare beaches with low dunes covered by scattered grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense vegetation, maritime forest on Shackleford Banks, and large expanses of salt marsh alongside the sound. All of the islands of Cape Lookout National Seashore are subject to constant and dramatic change by the actions of wind and waves, and therefore the study area of this plan addresses the creation of new islands or the re-combination of existing islands. Sensitive habitat and species at the Seashore are managed within the context of a variety of visitor-use patterns, which include the use of ORVs. The number of recreational visitors to the Seashore fell from approximately 625,400 in 2001 to approximately 480,290 in 2012 with visitation fluctuating between this period. During this time, visitation was highest in 2007 with approximately 860,600 visitors. Visitors to the Seashore participate in a variety of recreational activities, including beach recreation (swimming, windsurfing, sunbathing, etc.), fishing (surf and boat), motorized boating, camping, shell collecting, historical tourism, nature/eco-studies (birding, horse watching), harvesting of shellfish, nonmotorized boating (sailing, kayaking, canoeing), hunting, hiking, and photography. For many visitors, ORV use and beach driving provide access to these activities. This draft EIS analyzes five alternatives for managing ORV use: the no-action alternative, three action alternatives allowing ORV use, and one action alternative prohibiting ORV use. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, represents no change from the current level of management direction and level of management industry. Alternative B would maintain existing opportunities for ORV experiences on Core Banks; vehicle permits would be required to operate a vehicle at the Seashore, but there would be no limit on the number of permits the Seashore would release; ORV use and density could increase; existing management practices at the Seashore would continue; an annual operator education certificate would be required, plus additional education and outreach and species management measures would be implemented. In addition, there would be a phase-out of high-performance sport model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs after a five-year grace period. Alternative C would create three new seasonal pedestrian-only areas and expand one existing pedestrian-only area; ORV permits would be required that would keep use at historic levels, but could allow an increase in ORV density (the use levels would be monitored and management actions could be triggered if density increases); existing management practices at the Seashore would continue; an annual operator education certificate would be required, plus additional education and outreach and species management measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night driving, would be implemented. Alternative C would implement a seasonal prohibition of ATVs and UTVs; would prohibit high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs (after a five-year grace period), and would implement restrictions on trailers (after a five-year grace period). Alternative D would provide increased opportunities for year-round pedestrian experiences; ORV permits would be required and would be limited to keep the number of permits issued at 8 percent below current ORV use levels; existing management practices at the Seashore would continue, plus a requirement for an annual operator education certificate, increased education and outreach and additional species management measures, such as night driving, and a year-round prohibition of ATVs, high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs and of trailers, would be implemented after a five-year grace period (with non-sport UTVs allowed only seasonally). Under alternative E, the entire area of Core Banks would be closed to public ORV use and no back route access would be provided. Entry by public vehicles into these areas would be prohibited, and only use by NPS essential vehicles, and other vehicle use authorized by the NPS, would be allowed (concession vehicles included). Year-round pedestrian-only areas would extend to the entire area of Core Banks and Shackleford Banks. Species management measures under alternative E would be the same as alternative A except there would be no ORV specific closures. Management measures for all protected species are fully detailed in chapter 2, tables 3, 4, and 5. All education efforts would be directed toward pedestrian use as ORVs would not be permitted at the Seashore. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under all action alternatives, the impacts on piping plovers, sea turtles, and seabeach amaranth would be slightly better than under the no-action alternative. Alternative B would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management measures, including prohibition of high-performance sport-model ATVs and limits on night driving. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on red knots under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 81 percent (45 miles)of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. Alternatives B, C, and D may result in long-term adverse impacts resulting from a loss of visitor spending relative to alternative A for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs if the restrictions on ORVs such as the prohibition of night driving in the summer, loss of long-term parking, restrictions on ATVs and UTVs and the permit fee and education requirements result in fewer visitors and lower visitor spending. Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternatives B and C (which have the same impacts to Seashore management and operations) would result in long-term noticeable adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations due to the increase in staffing and personnel costs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures, enforce nighttime driving restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, provide visitors with ORV closure information, manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and manage the education certificate, manage the ORV parking lots, record the number of vehicles operating or stored at the Seashore each day, attend meetings of local organizations and present information regarding ORV use and species protection, construct additional ramps along the back route, and designate emergency overnight parking areas. JF - EPA number: 140153, Draft EIS--652 pages, May 23, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Vegetation KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Economic Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Cape Lookout National Seashore KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1648571228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+LOOKOUT+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARTERET+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+LOOKOUT+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CARTERET+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harkers Island, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR (TEX RAIL CORRIDOR), FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16373226; 16144 AB - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail (TEX Rail) Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. JF - EPA number: 140148, Final EIS--608 pages, Appendices--2,292 pages, May 16, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Airports KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/16373226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR+%28TEX+RAIL+CORRIDOR%29%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR+%28TEX+RAIL+CORRIDOR%29%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 16, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AND THE BOROUGHS OF BROOKLYN, QUEENS AND STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK. AN - 1647361846; 16137 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) for Gateway National Recreation Area in Monmouth County, New Jersey and the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island is proposed. Established in 1972, Gateway National Recreation Area is located in the heart of the nations largest metropolitan area and is a close-to-home retreat for millions of people every year. Gateway is composed of 27,025 acres of open bays, ocean, marsh islands, shoreline, dunes, maritime and successional forests, grasslands, mudflats, and open spaces. It includes marinas, greenways, campgrounds, trails, beaches, and picnic grounds within historic landscapes, the remains of important coastal defense works, rare structures from our aviation history, and the oldest continuously operating lighthouse in the United States. The legislative boundary for Gateway extends into adjacent waters, including the Atlantic Ocean, Jamaica Bay, Raritan Bay, and Upper and Lower New York Bay. The park manages 21,680 acres of land and waters. An additional 5,345 acres are managed by other federal agencies, owned by New York City, or privately held by entities such as Breezy Point Cooperative, Broad Channel, and Roxbury. The park has three administrative units: the Jamaica Bay Unit, Sandy Hook Unit, and Staten Island Unit. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would provide the widest range of activities and the most recreation opportunities in dispersed locations throughout the park. New connections would be forged with park lands and communities adjacent to Gateway and nearby. More convenient and affordable park access would be developed through trail connections, bicycle infrastructure, public transit, and waterborne transportation. This alternative would prioritize joint management and operations for visitor services, orientation, programs, and facilities with New York City and other partners. Alternative C would provide the most opportunities for independent exploration and experiences that immerse visitors into natural areas, historic sites, and landscapes. This alternative would increase the visibility, enjoyment, and protection of coastal resources and focus resource management on beach and dune ecosystems and coastal defense landscapes. New recreational programming would emphasize low-impact activities that highlight preservation efforts as part of interpretation and education activities and promote hands-on learning and outdoor skills. This alternative would maximize sustainable operations and concentrate activities, access, and facilities in distinct locations. Both action alternatives include the restoration of over 100 acres of saltmarsh, freshwater wetland, and open water habitat at Floyd Bennett Field. The action alternatives would also prioritize the restoration and rehabilitation of historic structures and districts, while allowing non-prioritized structures and districts to deteriorate over time. Fundamental historic resources located in Fort Wadsworth Historic District, Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark District, and Fort Tilden Historic District would be preserved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Management of wetland and water resources, protection of natural habitats and wetlands, and shoreline protection and erosion control projects would improve water quality and clarity, coastal resiliency, and sediment transport dynamics. Restoring dunes at park sites, and particularly any successful effort to remove groins, jetties, or other structures that inhibit natural sand transport and deposition, would have areawide beneficial impacts. Under both action alternatives, the visitor experience would be improved and the amount and variety of recreational opportunities expanded. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would remove vegetation and could result in some increases in erosion and water turbidity. Increased visitor use at Floyd Bennett Field and Fort Tilden, as well as at Sandy Hook and at the newly planted Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue parks in the Jamaica Bay Unit, would have the potential for adverse localized impacts on wildlife. Investments in existing facilities or adding new infrastructure within coastal flood or storm surge zones would represent a significant risk. Although the action alternatives would result in loss of individual historic structures, the losses would be less extensive than under the No Action Alternative. JF - EPA number: 140141, Final EIS--610 pages, Appendices--106 pages, Executive Summary--34 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dunes KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gateway National Recreation Area KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647361846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Staten Island, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONTRA LOMA RESERVOIR AND RECREATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1647361844; 16139 AB - PURPOSE: A 25-year-long resource management plan for the Contra Loma Reservoir and Recreation Area located in Contra Costa County, California is proposed. The 741-acre Recreation Area consists of the 80-acre Contra Loma Reservoir and approximately 661 acres of surrounding land, including the Contra Loma Regional Park and the Antioch Community Park. Contra Loma Reservoir was constructed in 1967 as part of the Central Valley Project and is managed by Reclamations Mid-Pacific Regions South-Central California Area Office. The Contra Costa Water District operates and maintains the reservoir under contract with Reclamation. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) currently manages recreation on the reservoir and the recreational lands surrounding the reservoir as the Contra Loma Regional Park pursuant to an agreement with Reclamation. Under a separate agreement with EBRPD, the City of Antioch operates and manages the Community Park located in the northeastern portion of Contra Loma. This draft EIS examines three alternatives: the No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), the current resource and recreation management direction and practices at Contra Loma would continue unchanged. Under Alternative 2, the Enhanced Recreation and Facilities Alternative, the management direction would be shifted toward enhancement of current recreational uses and facilities. This alternative includes management actions to enhance, replace or upgrade existing recreation uses and facilities and installation of new facilities to expand or complement existing uses and facilities. Examples include upgrades to restrooms, the swim lagoon, fishing piers, the trail system, the boat launch, and administrative buildings. Examples also include new facilities such as additional restrooms, sewer lines, picnic sites, parking areas, and habitat restoration activities. Alternative 2 involves no major expansion of recreational facilities. This alternative also includes boundary adjustments between the Regional Park and the Community Park. Under Alternative 3, the Expanded Recreation and Facilities alternative, the management direction would be shifted toward expansion of recreational uses and facilities. This alternative includes the management actions listed under Alternative 2 (Enhanced Recreation and Facilities) and provides additional management actions to expand existing recreational uses and facilities and to install new facilities that expand recreational opportunities. Examples include construction of a fishermen's shelter, a playground structure, a disc golf course, and new multi-use sports fields, and expansion of the swim lagoon and the trail system. Other examples include planting of shade trees, installation of shade structures and solar panels, and fish habitat improvements to increase fish populations. This alternative may also include overnight group camping. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would: (1) establish uniform policy and land management guidelines that promote organized use, development, and management of recreation area lands; (2) protect the water supply and quality of Contra Loma Reservoir; (3) manage natural and cultural resources in and around the reservoir; and (4) provide additional recreational opportunities and facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The two action alternatives would include new, enhanced, expanded, or renovated facilities to enhance or expand recreation and improve operations. These facilities are expected to be designed and located in order to promote compatibility with existing land uses, however, some new land use compatibility conflicts could occur under the two action alternatives. Increased visitation would incrementally increase the need for routine maintenance activities which could incrementally increase the frequency of temporary restriction or impairment of public use and recreation access. Increased vehicle trips to Contra Loma would represent a small proportion of the existing traffic on local roads serving Contra Loma. These trips would increase average daily traffic from 2 to 6 percent of the current traffic volumes and would be expected to cause a similar increase in volume-to-capacity ratios. The increased visitation expected under all of the alternatives would generate more solid and sanitary waste, which could create public health and safety issues. Increased visitation could increase the potential for unauthorized human contact with the reservoir, increasing the potential for human-borne pathogens and viruses to affect reservoir water quality. JF - EPA number: 140143, Draft EIS--334 pages, Appendices--123 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Parks KW - Land Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fisheries KW - California KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647361844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTRA+LOMA+RESERVOIR+AND+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONTRA+LOMA+RESERVOIR+AND+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION: RAIL LINE BETWEEN LEBAN AND SALINA, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2007). AN - 1647361841; 16138 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 43-mile rail line in Sanpete, Sevier, and Juab counties, Utah is proposed by the Six Counties Association of Governments to allow for the efficient transfer of coal from Leban to a coal transfer facility near Salina. The project, known as the Central Utah Rail Project, would begin at the connection with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline track near Juab, 16 miles south of Nephi, and terminate at a point 0.5 mile southwest of Salina. A portion of the rail line would cross segments of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, requiring the Bureau to grant a right-of-way to the applicant. The rail line would provide access to local industries, primarily a coal mine owned by Southern Utah Fuel Company located 30 miles east of Salina. Due to an absence of rail access, these industries currently move all goods by truck. Other than Juab's access to the nearby UPRR line, no rail service exists in this part of Utah. Business in the counties of Sanpete and Sevier must rely exclusively on trucks for freight transportation. The 2007 draft EIS examined three alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the Proposed Action (Alternative B), and a second action alternative (Alternative C). After several agencies raised concerns about the impacts on wetlands of the alternatives carried forward, three modified alternative routes were developed. This draft supplemental EIS examines Alternative B (the Proposed Action) the three modified routes (Alternatives B1, B2, and B3), and Alternatives N1a and N1b, which were alternatives dismissed in the draft EIS. Alternative B would involve construction of about 11.1 miles of new rail line. Alternative B is generally north-south and passes east of Chicken Creek Reservoir and through the Juab Plain, a valley between mountains to the east and west. Alternative B crosses the Sevier Bridge Reservoir at Yuba Narrows, south of Yuba Lake Recreation Area. Alternative B would permanently disturb about 77 acres of pasture and cropland and would fill 1.2 acres of playa wetlands and 0.3 acre of wet meadow wetlands in the northern portion of the study area. The Applicant developed Alternative B3 to try to avoid, to the extent possible, wetland impacts near Chicken Creek Reservoir at the north end of the project area and minimize, to the extent possible, impacts to irrigated cropland. This alternative connects to the UPRR mainline with a wye connection (a Y-shaped intersection) about 1 mile north of the Juab siding, near the Sharp siding. The alternative continues southeast and merges with the Alternative B alignment northeast of Yuba Hill. Alternative B3 would be about 13 miles long and would permanently disturb about 115 acres of pasture and cropland during construction, about half of which would be permanently converted to rail right-of-way. Alternative N1a connects with the UPRR mainline near the intersection of Washboard/Valley Road and Mills Road. Of the four alternatives considered at the northern end of the study area in this Supplemental Draft EIS (Alternatives B, B3, N1a, and N1b), Alternative N1a has the shortest length. However, this alternative would require 10,000 feet of new siding to meet current rail industry safety standards because there is no existing siding. The new siding would also require new turnouts10 and control signals to link the siding with the UPRR network. Alternative N1b connects with the UPRR mainline about 1 mile west of Washboard Road. It is slightly longer than Alternative N1a. For Alternatives B1 and B2, the proposed alignment was moved farther to the west, and additional curvature was designed into the alignments to avoid high-value wetlands along the Sevier River. Alternatives B1 and B2 follow a similar route with minor differences to reduce wetland impacts. Alternative B1 would fill 5.2 acres of wetlands, and Alternative B2 would fill 1.6 acres. Alternative B1 was eventually dismissed because it closely follows the route of Alternative B2 but would have greater wetland impacts. Impacts to pasture and cropland would be about the same, about 50 acres, for the two southern alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed railway would allow industries to access rail transportation for bulk movement of commodities to and from the area, providing a more cost-efficient means of freight movement. The rail line would decrease freight transportation energy use in the corridor from 2,832 million British thermal units (Btu) per day to 1,301 million Btu per day. The line would also reduce the level of heavy truck traffic on state highways and city streets not designed for such vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 538 acres of mixed-vegetation habitat, 43.1 acres of irrigated farmland, 8.9 acres of non-irrigated farmland, and 4.23 animal unit months of livestock forage. The project would disturb 163.5 acres of wetlands, 16 acres of floodplain, and 174 acres of groundwater recharge area. The line would cross 85 ephemeral drainages. Approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required. Rights-of-way development would affect 27 archaeological sites, 16 historic sites, and two multi-component sites. Eleven acres of the Yuba Lake Recreation Area would be affected. JF - EPA number: 140142, Draft Supplemental EIS--167 pages, Appendices--265 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Livestock KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Termination Act of 1995, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647361841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%3A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+LEBAN+AND+SALINA%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%3A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+LEBAN+AND+SALINA%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1647361840; 16140 AB - PURPOSE: A project to involve the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater within the Lower Santa Margarita River (SMR) Basin to help the US Marine Corps and the Fallbrook Public Utility Districts needs to provide water resources to Camp Pendleton is proposed. Conjunctive use would consist of adaptive management of surface water and groundwater resources and would be achieve through the diversion of SMR surface water and groundwater percolation ponds and the active use of groundwater aquifers for water storage. The Proposed Action would enhance groundwater recharge and recovery capacity within the Lower SMR Basin and develop a conjunctive use program that would increase available water supplies for the benefit of MCB Camp Pendleton and FPUD. SMR CUP would construct facilities within the Lower SMR Basin to capture additional surface runoff during high streamflow events that currently flows out to the Pacific Ocean. This surface water would be used to recharge groundwater through existing groundwater percolation ponds and stored or banked in groundwater basins during wet years and used to augment water supplies during dry years, reducing reliance on imported water. Specifically included are improvements to the diversion works and increased capacity of the headgate and the ONeill Ditch; improvements to seven existing percolation ponds; installation of new groundwater production wells and gallery wells; treatment of water at an existing, expanded, or new water treatment plant (WTP); and a bi-directional pipeline to deliver water to FPUD and provide MCB Camp Pendleton with an off-base water supply during drier than normal conditions or emergency situations. The majority of improvements would occur on MCB Camp Pendleton. This draft EIS considers two action alternatives and a No-Action Alternative. Alternative 1 consists of the following: (1) the replacement of existing sheet pile diversion with inflatable weir diversion structure; (2) improvements to ONeill Ditch and Headgate; (3) improvements to percolation ponds 1-7; (4) new groundwater production wells and associated collection system infrastructure; (5) new water conveyance/distribution, including a bi-directional pipeline from MCB Camp Pendleton to Red Mountain Reservoir via a new FPUD Water Treatment Plant; (6) a new FPUD water treatment plant; and (7) an open space management zone. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 in terms of diversion system upgrades, groundwater recharge, and groundwater production. The project components specific to Alternative 2 are: (1) expanded Haybarn Canyon AWTP and the addition of a surface water treatment facility at Camp Pendleton; (2) gallery wells and the associated collection system infrastructure; and (3) a water conveyance/distribution system, including a bi-directional pipeline to the Gheen Zone/Martin Reservoir. Under the No-Action Alternative, both MCB Camp Pendleton and FPUD would obtain all of their potable water demands from existing water supplies, with an increased reliance on imported water. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Proposed Action would enhance groundwater recharge and recovery capacity within the Lower SMR Basin and develop a conjunctive use program that would increase available water supplies for the benefit of MCB Camp Pendleton and FPUD. The project would prevent groundwater depletion and its indirect effects on riparian habitat and associated species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would have direct and indirect impacts due to vegetation removal and disturbance of individuals resulting in the disruption of feeding or reproduction, energetic costs, and predation risks. The projects use of water in the Lower SMR may reduce streamflow and groundwater levels relative to historic averages. This could indirectly impact riparian habitat through flow-mediated changes in the distribution and duration of seasonal aquatic habitats, as well as reduced productivity of groundwater-dependent riparian vegetation and would have the potential for impacts on riparian and estuarine habitats and associated special status species, including impacts on least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, arroyo toad, lightfooted clapper rail, California least tern, southern California steelhead, and Beldings savannah sparrow. JF - EPA number: 140144, Draft EIS--550 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Rivers KW - Wells KW - Weirs KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness Management KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton California KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647361840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Camp Pendleton, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTTONWOOD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR DOMESTIC SHEEP GRAZING, LATAH, NEZ PERCE, LEWIS, IDAHO, AND ADAMS COUNTIES, IDAHO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2008). AN - 16384002; 16133 AB - PURPOSE: In August 2008, the BLM published the Proposed Cottonwood Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Cottonwood PRMP/FEIS) (BLM 2008b); subsequently receiving a number of protests on the proposed decision. The BLM denied all protest points except for one concerning the adequacy of the range of alternatives for the management of domestic sheep and goat grazing on four BLM allotments within bighorn sheep (Orvis canadensis) habitat; specifically as it pertains to the potential disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep. This draft supplemental EIS describes and analyzes six alternatives for the management of domestic sheep on 19,405 acres of public land in Idaho and Adams counties, Idaho, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood Field Office. Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, the BLM would take no action. Alternative B, the BLMs preferred alternative, emphasizes reducing the potential for transmission of disease to bighorn sheep while providing some opportunity for grazing of domestic sheep, based on consideration of the proximity of the allotments to core herd home ranges (CHHR) and risk of contact between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep. The preferred alternative would prohibit domestic sheep and goat grazing on all allotments except Big Creek. Alternative C would eliminate contact between domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep, and the associated potential for disease transmission, by prohibiting domestic sheep and goat grazing on all of the four allotments. Alternative D was developed to reduce the potential for contact and disease transmission in the Main Salmon/South Fork CHHR (Partridge Creek Allotment) and Little Salmon area of concern (Hard Creek Allotment). Domestic sheep and goat grazing would be prohibited on the Partridge Creek and Hard Creek allotments. Alternative E was developed to eliminate the highest risk of contact by prohibiting domestic sheep and goat grazing on the Partridge Creek Allotment. The Partridge Creek Allotment is the only allotment that overlaps with the Main Salmon/South Fork CHHR. Alternative F emphasizes the elimination of potential contact in the Main Salmon/South Fork bighorn herd by prohibiting the grazing of domestic sheep or goats on the Partridge Creek and Marshall Mountain allotments; however, domestic sheep grazing could continue at its current levels on the Hard Creek and Big Creek allotments which occur in the Little Salmon River drainage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B, the BLM preferred alternative, would provide greater opportunity for Tribal harvest than would alternatives A, D, E, and F, as the outcomes for persistence of bighorn sheep would be more favorable under this alternative. In addition, the probability for contact between species is lower than for alternatives A, D, E, and F. Actions under this SEIS could have small cumulative economic impacts relative to the agriculture sector but larger effects relative to the subsector that includes sheep grazing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trailing routes that intersect bighorn sheep CHHRs have a high probability of contributing to interspecies contacts, and those that intersect bighorn sheep source habitats have the potential for contact and disease transmission. Trailing sheep can also result in stray domestic sheep that utilize habitats occupied by bighorn sheep outside of the grazing season (e.g., potential contacts on winter source habitats), as some trailing routes are near or on bighorn sheep CHHRs (e.g., Salmon River Road private trailing). JF - EPA number: 140137, Draft Supplemental EIS--199 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Plant Control KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Cottonwood Resource Management Area KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTTONWOOD+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+DOMESTIC+SHEEP+GRAZING%2C+LATAH%2C+NEZ+PERCE%2C+LEWIS%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ADAMS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2008%29.&rft.title=COTTONWOOD+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+DOMESTIC+SHEEP+GRAZING%2C+LATAH%2C+NEZ+PERCE%2C+LEWIS%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ADAMS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOOPER SPRINGS TRANSMISSION PROJECT, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2013). AN - 16381566; 16130 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line and associated facilities in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. Lower Valley Energy (LVE) and Fall River Electric Cooperative (FREC) are customers of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) who purchase all, or almost all, of the electric power required to serve their electrical loads in eastern Idaho, northwestern Wyoming, and southwestern Montana from BPA. LVEs system experiences extreme peaks in electrical load during winter. If a transmission line serving the southern portion of LVEs system were to lose service, LVE and FREC customers could lose power and heat. This draft supplemental EIS considers two alternatives and several route options, including Option 3A, which was developed from comments and suggestions collected from the Draft EIS. The alternatives for the proposed transmission line are: a North Alternative, including two route options; a South Alternative, including four route options; and a No Action Alternative. The North Alternative would include a new, 32-mile-long, single-circuit 115-kV transmission line north of Soda Springs, Idaho that would extend from the proposed BPA Hooper Springs Substation generally north and then east to the existing LVE Lanes Creek Substation. This alternative also would include construction of the 138/115-kV BPA Hooper Springs Substation, which would be located about three miles directly north of Soda Springs along Threemile Knoll Road. New 115-kV substation facilities within the boundaries of LVEs existing Lanes Creek Substation, which is located east of the unincorporated community of Wayan, Idaho, also would be constructed. A new 0.5-mile, singlecircuit 138-kV transmission line that would extend from the Hooper Springs Substation generally south to PacifiCorps existing 345/138-kV Threemile Knoll Substation would be constructed to connect the new line to the regional transmission grid. The Long Valley Road Option would move the North Alternative off state of Idaho lands and increase the length of the transmission line by 0.6 mile. The North Highland Option is about 2.2 miles long and would move the North Alternative corridor on to primarily Caribou-Targhee National Forest lands. he South Alternative would include a new, 22.5-mile-long, double-circuit 115-kV transmission line that would extend from the proposed Hooper Springs Substation generally north to northeast for six to eight miles before turning east to a proposed connection with LVEs existing transmission system at a point about two miles southeast of the intersection of Blackfoot River Road and Diamond Creek Road. The South Alternative also would include construction of the Hooper Springs Substation and the 0.5-mile transmission line to PacifiCorps Threemile Knoll Substation. Options 1 and 2 would follow the same general route as the South Alternative with one to two minor deviations near Conda and at the Blackfoot River Narrows. Option 3 would follow a route similar to the first part of the North Alternative west of Highway 34 before turning and rejoining the same general corridor as the South Alternative. Option 3A would generally follow the same path as Option 3 and would be about 24 miles long and also cross federal lands, private agricultural and grazing lands, mining areas, and lands managed for wildlife and recreation. Option 4 would follow the same route as Option 3 for about 4.5 miles before turning east across Highway 34 to connect back with the South Alternative corridor. Construction cost for the Hooper Springs Transmission Project is estimated at $51 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would increase reliability to the southern portion of LVEs transmission system and address ongoing growth in electricity use in southeast Idaho and the Jackson Hole valley area in northwestern Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North and South Alternatives would require the permanent removal of 110.6 acres and 79.4 acres of native vegetation, respectively. The North Alternative would span the Blackfoot River, Little Blackfoot River, Meadow Creek, and Gravel Creek. The South Alternative would span the Blackfoot River, Mill Canyon Creek, and several smaller unnamed tributaries to the Blackfoot River. The project could impact up to 1.2 acres of wetlands as well as suitable habitat for some federal and state species of concern. The corridor for the South Alternative would cross areas of prime farmland and one or more areas that have selenium soil contamination from phosphate mining activities. The transmission line would be visible along Highway 34, and both alternatives would likely have a long-term impact on the landscape in this primarily privately owned area. JF - EPA number: 140134, Draft Supplemental EIS Volume I--517 pages, Volume II--387 pages, Volume III--389 pages, May 9, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0451 KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Federal Columbia River Transmission Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 9, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2015-01-22 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Annual Performance Report. FFY 2012. Revised Clarification April 30, 2014. APR Template-Part B. AN - 1697503596; ED554041 AB - During school year (SY) 2012-2013, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) continued its efforts to improve the validity and reliability of data reporting. BIE data collections are dependent on school level entry (self-reporting) into the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) or into the BIE's Academic Report (formerly the BIEs Annual Report) from the schools. In addition, data is gathered and analyzed through the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process (SEIMP) conducted annually. Through onsite activities and webinars, schools have increased their level of understanding of data requirements and analyses. The BIE aligns reporting requirements with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The BIE oversees a total of 173 elementary and secondary schools, located on 64 reservations in 23 states. Of these, 58 are BIE-operated and 115 are Tribally-operated under BIE grants or contracts. The BIE provides funds to all schools; however tribal groups have been granted or contracted to operate the tribally controlled schools. Both category of schools are treated the same relative to program management, monitoring, and support. The BIE included stakeholder involvement in the development of the APR when members of the BIE Advisory Board for Exceptional Children participated in a conference call on January 17, 2014 and provided input on the data to be reported and the collection process. They asked for and received clarification on specific indicators and provided suggestions for revisions which have been incorporated. Y1 - 2014/04/30/ PY - 2014 DA - 2014 Apr 30 SP - 62 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - American Indian Reservations KW - Reading Tests KW - Special Education KW - Improvement Programs KW - Academic Achievement KW - Error Correction KW - Student Placement KW - Measurement Techniques KW - Reading Achievement KW - Transitional Programs KW - Disabilities KW - Mathematics Tests KW - Educational Resources KW - American Indian Education KW - Supervision KW - Graduation Rate KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Program Descriptions KW - Suspension KW - Gender Differences KW - Response Rates (Questionnaires) KW - Educational Indicators KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Language Arts KW - Benchmarking KW - Annual Reports KW - Educational Improvement KW - Expulsion KW - Educational Environment KW - Educational Practices KW - Enrichment Activities KW - Educational Policy KW - Parent Participation KW - Parent Attitudes KW - Educational Assessment UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697503596?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 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. AN - 1637516462; 16123 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 final 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. JF - EPA number: 140127, Final EIS Volume I--361 pages, Volume II--725 pages, April 25, 2014 PY - 2014 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/1637516462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-25&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 - 2014-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TYLERHORSE WIND PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16384354; 16110 AB - PURPOSE: Heartland Wind, LLC, has requested to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the Tylerhorse Wind Project (TWP), an approximate 1,207-acre, up to 60-Megawatt (MW) wind energy project. The TWP would be located in Kern County, California approximately 15 miles west of Highway 14, 12 miles south of Highway 58, and eight miles north of State Route 138. This draft EIS examines five alternatives. Alternative 1, the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative, consists of 40 WTGs designed to produce up to 60 MW of energy. The substation, switchyard, O&M facility, and construction lay down areas would be located on the adjacent Manzana Wind Energy Project (MWEP) or Pacific Wind Energy Project (PWEP) site. This alternative would also involve an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980 (CDCA Plan) to find the project site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 2 is conceptually similar to Alternative 1, but with the southwest 94-acre parcel eliminated from the project resulting in three fewer WTGs designed to produce up to 55.5 MW of energy. As with Alternative 1, the substation, switchyard, O&M facility, and construction lay down areas would be located on the adjacent MWEP or PWEP sites. This alternative would also involve an amendment to the CDCA Plan. Under Alternative 3, none of the project components would be built and the CDCA Plan would not be amended. Under Alternative 4, none of the Project components would be built and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the Project site as unsuitable for wind energy development. Under Alternative 5, none of the Project components would be built and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the Project site as suitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Around 12 full-time and part-time skilled or semi-skilled workers will be needed to operate and maintain the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the Proposed Action, maximum daily construction-related NOx emissions would exceed the EKAPCD thresholds. Six prehistoric cultural resources are located within the area of potential effect. The project would permanently disturb 24 acres of the 960 acres currently designated as grazing land on the TWP site. A total of 195 acres of foraging acreage would be in affected during construction of the Proposed Action. The use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste associated with construction of the Proposed Action could result in potential adverse health and environmental impacts associated with improper management resulting in a release of these materials. Around 190.90 acres of vegetation, including approximately 79.4 acres of Mojave Desert Wash Scrub and 49.8 acres of Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub, would be affected. JF - EPA number: 140114, Draft EIS Volume 1--568 pages, Volume 2--1,093 pages, April 18, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/PL-2014/014+1793 KW - Easements KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+PROGRAM%3A+2012-2017%2C+WESTERN%2C+CENTRAL+AND+EASTERN+GULF+OF+MEXICO+AND+BEAUFORT+SEA%2C+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+AND+COOK+INLET%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 18, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1629924601; 16113 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of six land parcels containing 69.77 acres for the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians and the subsequent development of a destination resort casino in northern Sonoma County, California is proposed. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and its management partners. The project site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Cloverdale and lies immediately east of Highway 101 and borders Asti Road. The proposed trust parcels partially overlap the Tribe's historic Rancheria location. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to socioeconomics, transportation, wastewater treatment and disposal, and water resources. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, which is the proposed action, would consist of the fee-to-trust transfer of the project site, federal review of the development and management contract, and development of a two-story casino, 287,000 square-foot hotel, convention center, entertainment center, and other ancillary facilities. Parking for patrons and employees would be provided through garage and surface parking. A 20,000 square-foot tribal government building would occupy the southeastern end of the site. Under Alternative B, the casino and hotel facilities would be similar, but reduced in scale. The entertainment center would be the same size as under Alternative A, but no convention center component would be included. Alternative C would further reduce the size of the casino, but the hotel and entertainment center would be the same size as under Alternative B. Alternative D would consist of a casino only. No hotel, convention center, or entertainment center would be developed. Under Alternative E, the project site would be used for development of a commercial real estate and office center with light industrial warehouse space. The NIGC would not review a development and management contract because no gaming component would be included. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed development would assist the Tribe in restoring its trust land base, strengthening tribal governance, achieving economic self-sufficiency, providing employment for members, and providing essential services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction related emissions would be potentially significant, but would not violate federal standards. Operational emissions, primarily from on-road vehicle traffic, would exceed established thresholds for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Implementation would result in changes to existing drainage patterns, both on-site and off-site, including the addition of up to 17 acres of new impervious or semi-impervious surfaces. Increased stormwater flows could result in increased discharge to downstream areas with possible increased incidence of flooding or erosion. Implementation of Alternative A would directly impact 22.5 acres of vineyard, 0.58 acres of Coast live oak woodland, 20.18 acres of non-native annual grassland, 0.11 acres of North Coast riparian habitat, and 0.48 acres of seasonal wetland. JF - EPA number: 140117, Final EIS, Appendices, April 18, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits 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/1629924601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLOVERDALE+RANCHERIA+OF+POMO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+RESORT+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLOVERDALE+RANCHERIA+OF+POMO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+RESORT+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+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 - 2014-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 18, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS COYOTES BAND OF CAHUILLA AND CUPENO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO-HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF BARSTOW, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1629924600; 16119 AB - PURPOSE: A 23.1-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a casino and hotel in the City of Barstow, San Bernardino County, California are proposed. The Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (Tribe) has requested that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take the land, currently held in fee by the Tribe, into federal trust status. Approval of the Tribes gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission may also be required under the proposed action. Economic development opportunities for the Tribe have been limited due to a lack of funds for project development and operation, as well as the fact that the Tribe's existing 25,050-acre reservation lands are remote, environmentally sensitive, and difficult to access. Five alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A, a casino with 88,500 square feet of gaming floor and a 160-room hotel would be developed on the Barstow site just east of Interstate 15. A total of 1,225 surface-level parking spaces and 637 below-ground parking spaces would be provided. Alternative B is the currently proposed project and would involve the development of a reduced casino hotel complex at the Barstow site. The casino would have 57,070 square feet of gaming floor and the hotel tower would have approximately 100 rooms. A total of 1,405 parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative C, a reduced-intensity casino would be developed at a 19-acre site within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative D is a nongaming alternative and would involve the development of a campground facility on 19 acres within the Los Coyotes Reservation. Alternative E is the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that would be used to strengthen the tribal government and establish self-sufficiency. Funds for a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services would improve the quality of life of tribal members. Operation of the complex would provide employment opportunities for the tribal and non-tribal community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development of Alternative A or B could have minimal effects to desert tortoise; and operations would have a potentially adverse effect on local and regional air quality as well as traffic. Construction within the Los Coyotes Reservation under Alternative C or D could have moderate adverse effects on wetlands and to the arroyo toad and Stephen's kangaroo rat. All of the action alternatives could have moderate adverse effects on nesting migratory birds. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling. JF - EPA number: 140123, Final EIS Volume I, Volume II, April 18, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1629924600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+COYOTES+BAND+OF+CAHUILLA+AND+CUPENO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO-HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+BARSTOW%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 18, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 16382999; 16105 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. JF - EPA number: 140109, Final EIS--474 pages, Appendices--286 pages, Maps--64 pages, April 11, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Charleston, West Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2014-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-11-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHLINE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 16370858; 16107 AB - PURPOSE: Southline Transmission, LLC has proposed to construct approximately 240 miles of new double-circuit 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission Line in a 200-foot right-of-way between the Afton Substation, south of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Western Area Power Administrations (WAPAs) Apache Substation, south of Willcox, Arizona. Southline also proposes to upgrade 120 miles of Westerns existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV transmission lines in a 100-foot existing ROW to a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line in a 150-foot ROW. The Upgrade Section would originate at the Apache Substation and terminate at the Saguaro Substation northwest of Tucson, Arizona. The transmission line route alternatives would pass through Dona Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna counties in New Mexico; and Cochise, Pima, Pinal, Graham, and Greenlee counties in Arizona. One proposed new substation could also be constructed in Luna County, New Mexico. The proposed transmission line route alternatives would be approximately 360 to 380 miles long and would require ROW, crossing BLM, state, or private lands, or lands managed by other entities in New Mexico and Arizona. This draft EIS considers the Proposed Action as well as a range of alternative routes. The Alternatives are organized into four route groups using major existing substations as nodes. Route group 1 includes two subroutes and four local alternatives. Both subroutes are roughly 140 miles long. Local alternatives range between 9 and 42 miles long. Three of the four local alternatives were identified by Southline and represent routing options developed to avoid localized environmental conflicts along the international border. The fourth local alternative provides a co-location option with the proposed SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project. Like route group 1, route group 2 includes two subroutes. Route group 2 includes eight local alternatives. Both subroutes are roughly 95 miles long. Local alternatives range between two and 35 miles long. The eight local alternatives were identified by the BLM and WAPA and represent routing options developed to avoid localized environmental conflicts around Lordsburg and Willcox playas. Route group 3 includes the upgrade of the existing WAPA 115-kV line between the Apache and Pantano substations; the line measures approximately 70 miles between these two substations. There is one local alternative in route group 3. The one local alternative was identified by Southline and represents routing options developed to avoid residential development in the Benson area. Route group 4 includes the upgrade of the existing WAPA 115-kV line between the Pantano and Saguaro substations; the line measures approximately 50 miles between these two substations. There are 10 local alternatives in route group 4, most of which are located on or around Tumamoc Hill in urban Tucson. Nine of the 10 local alternatives proposed by the BLM and WAPA in this route group are options for replacing the portion of the existing WAPA line that crosses over Tumamoc Hill in Tucson; the 10th local alternative is a routing option near the Marana Airport proposed by the BLM and WAPA to address potential conflicts with future airport expansion plans. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Southlines proposal to upgrade Westerns existing transmission lines as part of its overall proposed 34 Project would strengthen the integrated transmission system, increase transmission capacity, and improve 35 power delivery. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Because the proposed Project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for impacts to air 7 quality during construction. Additionally, operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would result 8 impacts to air quality from vehicle exhaust from travel to substations and the transmission line for routine 9 inspection, as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from operation of the gas-insulated 10 circuit breakers in the switchyards. Potential impacts to the soil resources include accelerated rates of erosion by water or wind, as well as 37 loss of soil productivity due to the removal of soils during construction of access roads, and at structure 38 and substation sites. Limited clearing of vegetation and topsoil, as well as grading, would be required. Potential negative impacts to paleontological resources could result from the loss of important fossils due 13 to ground-disturbing activities during construction in sensitive geological deposits. Potential impacts to water resources include the potential for discharge of pollutants, including sediment, 30 to groundwater or surface water, the placement of larger structures within floodplains, and potential 31 disturbance of waters of the U.S. (WUS) or wetlands. JF - EPA number: 140111, Draft EIS Volume 1--635 pages, Volume 2--625 pages, Volume 3--283 pages, Volume 4--428 pages, April 11, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-14-01-1610 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Easements KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHLINE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SOUTHLINE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 11, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-11-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GARFIELD, MESA, PITKIN, AND ROUTT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16370813; 16096 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 final 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. JF - EPA number: 140100, Final EIS Volume I--556 pages, Volume II--796 pages, Volume III--252 pages, Appendices--1,828 pages, April 4, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use 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/16370813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-04-04&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 - 2014-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 4, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-11-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT AND NAVAJO MINE ENERGY PROJECT, NAVAJO NATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1622585147; 16093 AB - PURPOSE: A project is proposed that would include continued operation for the Four Corners Power Plant with a capacity of generating up to 1,500 megawatts (MW), renewal of transmission line right-of-ways, continued surface coal mining within the Navajo Mine permit area and extension of surface coal mining to the Pinabete Permit area, including associated access roads, coal preparation facilities and other facilities. The Navajo Nation granted a 24,000-acre coal lease in July 1957, and through a series of subsequent lease revisions and amendments, the lease area was increased to approximately 33,600 cares. The Navajo National owns the surface and mineral rights of the entire lease area and the permit areas located within it. The Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) is a coal-fired electric generating station that receives coal solely from the Navajo Mine. FCPP currently has five units which historically generated approximately 2,100 MW or energy, and provided power to more than 500,000 customers in Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas. Currently, three units are retired and two units (Units 4 and 5) generate 1,540 MW of energy. Several alternative actions for the power plant and mine are evaluated in this draft EIS, and the following five were carried through for full analysis: the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, two alternative mine plans, and an alternative ash disposal configuration. Under the No Action Alternative, OSMRE would deny the SMCRA permit for the Pinabete Permit Area and Navajo Mine Permit Area. Under the Proposed Action, OSMRE would approve NTECs Pinabete SMCRA permit application and Navajo Mine SMCRA application for permit renewal. In addition, BIA would approve Amendment 3 of FCPPs lease with the Navajo Nation as well as approve the ROW renewal for the four associated transmission lines and Navajo Mine Access roads. Under this alternative, overburden in mining operations would be removed primarily through dragline stripping. Under Alternative B, the Navajo Mine Extension Project Alternative, OSMRE would disapprove the Pinabete permit application. Also, NTEC would seek a 5,412-acre SMCRA permit and proposed mining disturbance in approximately 4,998 acres. The mining would occur through Pinabete Arroyo and require a diversion of flows from the arroyo around mining activities. Under Alternative C, the Alternative Pinabete Mine Plan, OSMRE would disapprove the Pinabete permit application, and NTEC would seek approval from OSMRE for a new 10,094-acre SMCRA permit area and proposed mining disturbance in approximately 6,492 acres. Mining would be located in both Area IV North and Area IV South. Under Alternative D, the Alternative Ash Disposal Area Configuration, OSMRE would approve the Pinabete permit application and new SMCRA permit for the Navajo Mine permit. Under this alternative, instead of constructing seven DFADAs, APS would construct a single large DFADA that would be approximately 350 acres total. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Proposed Action would: continue the generation and transmission of long-term, reliable, and uninterrupted baseload electrical power and provide for tribal self-determination and promote tribal economic development from the energy and mining sector for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the Proposed Action, it is anticipated that Navajo Mine employment would decrease from approximately 526 to approximately 397 full-time employees. Impacts to landforms and topography would be extensive for the life of the mine, but would be considered minor after reclamation. At least 43 significant paleontological resources would be physically affected by excavation of the pits in Area IV North and construction of the haul roads. Development of the Pinabete Permit Area could potentially impact 84 archaeological resources. Impacts to groundwater flow would be expected to be moderate due to the long rate of groundwater recovery. There also would be permanent impacts to five acres of waters. The Proposed Action would also cause loss of habitat and potential wildlife mortality from long-term traffic on Burnham Road. JF - EPA number: 140097, Draft EIS Volume I--960 pages, Volume II--616 pages, March 28, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Easements KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Refineries KW - Economic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Mining KW - Archaeological Sites KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1622585147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOUR+CORNERS+POWER+PLANT+AND+NAVAJO+MINE+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NAVAJO+NATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FOUR+CORNERS+POWER+PLANT+AND+NAVAJO+MINE+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NAVAJO+NATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 28, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-11-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - URANIUM LEASING PROGRAM, MESA, MONTROSE, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16382868; 16084 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) legacy Uranium Leasing Program (ULP) in western Colorado are proposed. The ULP administers 31 tracts of land covering an aggregate of approximately 25,000 acres in Mesa, Montrose, and San Miguel counties for exploration, mine development and operations, and reclamation of uranium mines. There are currently 29 existing leases; two of the lease tracts are not leased. Site-specific information available on the 31 lease tracts (including current lessee information and status, size of each lease tract, previous mining operations that occurred, location of existing permitted mines and associated structures, and other environmental information) has been utilized as the basis for the evaluation contained in this final ULP programmatic EIS. The lease tracts vary in size from as small as 25 acres to as large as about 4,000 acres. The active leases are held by five companies: 1) Golden Eagle Uranium, LLC; 2) Cotter Corporation; 3) Gold Eagle Mining, Inc.; 4) Colorado Plateau Partners; and 5) Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, Inc. Five alternatives are analyzed. Under Alternative 1, DOE would terminate all leases, and all operations would be reclaimed by lessees. DOE would continue to manage the withdrawn lands, without leasing, in accordance with applicable requirements. Alternative 2 would terminate leases as under Alternative 1, except once reclamation was completed by lessees, DOE would relinquish the lands. If the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) determines the lands were suitable to be managed as public domain lands, they would be managed by BLM under its multiple use policies. DOEs uranium leasing program would end. Under Alternative 3, the ULP would continue as it existed before July 2007 with the 13 then-active leases, for the next 10-year period or for another reasonable period, and then the remaining leases would be terminated. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would continue the ULP with the 31 lease tracts for the next 10-year period or for another reasonable period. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that there would be a total of 19 mines operating at various production rates at the same time during what would be considered the peak year of operations. Total tonnage of ore generated for the peak year of operation would be about 480,000 tons. The annual amount of water needed for the 19 active mines assumed for Alternative 4 would be about 6.3 million gallons. Retention ponds would be used to capture surface water and prevent sediment from entering nearby streams and drainages. As many as four retention ponds are assumed for the peak ULP mining activities. This alternative includes a requirement for future mines to be at least 0.25 mile from the Dolores River. Alternative 5 is the No Action Alternative and would continue the ULP with the 31 lease tracts for the remainder of the 10-year period, as the leases were when they were issued in 2008. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A management decision would determine the future course of the ULP, including whether to continue leasing some or all of the withdrawn lands and government-owned patented claims for the exploration and production of uranium and vanadium ores. Implementation of the preferred alternative would ensure a supply of domestic uranium to meet nuclear energy development needs in the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air quality impacts are expected to be minimal and temporary. Estimated ground disturbance under Alternative 4 would impact 460 acres of soils, vegetation, and habitat. Mine development and operations on the lease tracts closest to the Dolores and San Miguel rivers would have the greatest potential to affect water quality because of erosion. A limited number of existing domestic water wells could be affected if local groundwater is contaminated or aquifers are dewatered. Water withdrawals from the Upper Colorado River Basin to support mining activities may result in potentially unavoidable impacts on aquatic biota, particularly the Colorado River endangered fish species. Direct impacts could occur on 21 buried cultural resources. Noise impacts could exceed the Colorado daytime limit of 55 decibels. In addition, noise from haul trucks could exceed the Colorado nighttime limit of 50 decibels within 350 feet from the haul route. Lease tracts would be visible from numerous wildlife study areas, special recreation areas, the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, and Trail of the Ancient Byways. Human exposure from background radiation is expected to be negligible. JF - EPA number: 140088, Final EIS Volume 1--782 pages, Volume 2--578 pages, Volume 3--636 pages, March 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0472 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Property Disposition KW - Radiation KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=URANIUM+LEASING+PROGRAM%2C+MESA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=URANIUM+LEASING+PROGRAM%2C+MESA%2C+MONTROSE%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, Westminster, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2014-2016, WESTERN PLNANNING AREA LEASE SALES 238, 246, AND 248, TEXAS AND LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16375068; 16086 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental EIS addresses three proposed federal actions that offer for lease an area on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. Under the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, five proposed lease sales are scheduled for the Western Planning Area (WPA). The remaining three proposed lease sales are proposed WPA Lease Sales 238, 246, and 248, which are tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. The potential impacts of a WPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore, marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore are analyzed. Three alternatives were included for analysis in this supplemental EIS. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area for oil and gas operations, excepting the whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The proposed WPA lease sale are encompasses about 28.58 million acres. As of September 2013, approximately 20.8 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of natural resources projected to be developed as a result of a proposed WPA lease sale is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area as described for Alternative A, but it would exclude from leasing any unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimate amount of resources projected to be developed is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas. Alternative C is the cancellation of a proposed WPA lease sale. If this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from a proposed WPA lease sale would be precluded during the current 2012-2017 Five-Year Program, but it could again be contemplated as part of a future Five-Year Program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sales would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. Lease stipulations would reduce or eliminate environmental risks and/or potential multiple-use conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations could affect soft bottom benthic communities through infrastructure emplacement, turbidity, sedimentation, drilling effluent discharges, and produced-water discharges. These localized impacts generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms. Potential impacts to Sargassum are expected to have only minor effects. Impacts to wetlands are expected to be low because of the small length of onshore pipelines projected, the forecast for no new onshore facilities expected, and the minimal contribution to the need for maintenance dredging. Pipeline trenching and OCS discharge of drilling muds and produced water could affect fish resources or essential fish habitat, but any impacts are expected to be insignificant. Adverse impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, and avian species could occur, but are not expected to be significant. The oil spills most likely to result from a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. JF - EPA number: 140090, Final Supplemental EIS--774 pages, March 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Louisiana KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2015-2017; CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 235, 241, AND 247, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16372998; 16085 AB - PURPOSE: This draft supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the Central Planning Area (CPA) since publication of the final EIS of July 2012, which proposed five lease sales for the CPA. The remaining three proposed lease sales within the CPA are proposed CPA Lease Sales 235, 241, and 247, which are tentatively scheduled to be held in March 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. This draft supplemental EIS considers three alternatives. Alternative A is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006; 2) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 3) whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4 nautical mile buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United States and Mexico. As of May 2012, about 43.2 million acres of the 66.5 million-acre CPA sale area are currently unleased. Any one proposed CPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.460 to 0.894 BBO and 1.939 to 3.903 Tcf of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the CPA, as described for the proposed action, with the exception of any unleased blocks subject to the topographic features stipulation. Alternative C is the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sales would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. Oil from the CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential coastal environmental degradation caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills could impact fish resources and essential fish habitat. The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings would cause temporary increased turbidity and changes in sediment composition. The discharge of produced water would result in increased concentrations of some metals, hydrocarbons, and dissolved solids within an area of about 328 feet adjacent to the point of discharge. Structure installation and removal and pipeline placement would disturb sediments and cause increased turbidity. Localized impacts to comparatively small areas of the soft-bottom benthic habitats would occur. Adverse impacts on sea turtles and avian species could occur, but are not expected to be significant. The oil spills most likely to result from the proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. JF - EPA number: 140089, Draft Supplemental EIS--746 pages, March 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2015-2017%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2015-2017%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2012%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, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KREMMLING FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, EAGLE, GRAND, ROUTT, JACKSON, LARIMER, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 1618815573; 16072 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 final 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. JF - EPA number: 140076, Final EIS Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, and Maps, March 21, 2014 PY - 2014 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 - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers 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/1618815573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-21&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 - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG CANYON MINE PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1618815569; 16078 AB - PURPOSE: Newmont Mining Corporation has proposed a project for an open pit gold mine and processing facilities in Long Canyon, located in Elko County, Nevada. Construction would take approximately 18 months with mining to continue an additional eight to 13 years. Reclamation and reclamation management would continue for several years after mining is completed. The project area consists of a combination of public and private lands, with some split estate lands. Precious metal exploration activities were sporadic in the Pequop Mountains east of Wells, Nevada, until the mid-1990s when the Pittston Nevada Gold Corporation, using geochemical data, discovered several geologic alteration anomalies on the east side of the Pequop Range. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS: the proposed action, the preferred alternative, and the no action alternative. The proposed action includes the following: (1) an open pit that accesses oxide gold ore; (2) cyanide heap leach; (3) an oxide mill; (4) a waste rock storage facility (WRSF) to contain all waste rock generated in the mine; (5) a synthetic-lined tailings storage facility (TSF) to receive tailings slurry from the mill; (6) mine haul and access roads between the open pit and WRSF, heap leach, and mill facility; (7) internal service and access roads with no public use on these internal roads; (8) two communication towers; (9) a water supply well for processing facilities, dust control, ore beneficiation activities, and fire protection; (10) a potable water system; (11) support facilities for temporary ore storage, truck scale, administration office, first aid and safety related facilities, parking, maintenance shop, warehouse, fuel storage, explosives storage, communications towers, landfill, contractor/construction laydown and office area, security, septic system, petroleum-contaminated soils storage, monitoring wells, fencing, and assay lab/sample preparation facility; (12) stormwater and sediment controls; (13) initial power supply utilizing the existing electric distribution line and infrastructure owned by Wells Rural Electric Company; (14) future power supply for the mill operations consisting of an off-site, gas-turbine electric generating plant and a gas pipeline constructed to bring natural gas from the Ruby Pipeline to the site; (12) an alternative water supply and associated facilities for Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada to replace that portion of their current water supply; (13) a west access gate in Long Canyon and a north access gate on County Road 790; (14) growth medium (soil) stockpiles and construction fill borrow pits; and (15) exploration to further delineate ore zones and target potential mineralized resource areas within the plan boundary. Under the North Facilities Alternative, the BLMs preferred alternative, most of the mine facilities would be moved to the northeastern quadrant of the plan boundary. Under this alternative, all mine facilities, except the pit and some borrow pits, would located farther from Big Springs and other surface water features; the TSF would be surrounded by WRSF, reducing the total disturbed area of both facilities; ground surface at the north location is approximately 30 to 50 feet higher above the groundwater table; impacts to cultural sites located in the southern portion of the plan boundary would be minimized or avoided; activities near a greater sage-grouse lek would be avoided; the mule deer migration corridor would be greatly enlarged and other wildlife issues would benefit; and the same power supply design would be employed as for the proposed action. Under the no action alternative, the existing Long Canyon Mine Plan would not be authorized by the BLM and the activities described in the proposed action or the North Facilities Alternative would not occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would contribute to the cumulative effects on socioeconomics by increasing employment, income, and the demand for housing, schools, law enforcement, fire protection, and other services and infrastructure, especially in Elko County, Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential impacts to groundwater could result from changes in availability of groundwater to downgradient water rights holders. The proposed action combined with past, present and future actions may cumulatively impact wetlands and riparian resources through removal or disturbance of wetland and riparian communities in the CESA, through the removal of vegetation from upland areas, through potentially altering flow within wetlands and riparian areas, and degradation of aquatic habitat or other resources associated with wetlands and riparian areas. Effects to soil resources under the proposed action would be long-term and minor to moderate due to construction activities and topsoil salvage. Populations of mule deer, greater sage-grouse, and pronghorn antelope of elk would experience habitat removal and fragmentation and increased noise during construction and mining operations. JF - EPA number: 140082, Draft EIS, Appendices, March 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Tailings KW - Roads KW - Wells KW - Pipelines KW - Water Supply KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Quarries KW - Electric Power KW - Soils KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vegetation KW - Noise KW - Birds KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Nevada KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1618815569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+CANYON+MINE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LONG+CANYON+MINE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF 2011). AN - 16378833; 16064 AB - PURPOSE: The federal leasing of the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract, which encompasses 6,175 acres of National Forest Service (NFS) lands within Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) and Fishlake National Forest (FLNF), Sanpete and Sevier counties, Utah is proposed. Ark Land Company has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease and mine the coal reserves to extend the life of their existing Southern Utah Fuel Company (SUFCO) mine. This draft supplemental EIS clarifies potential effects within the Greens Hollow tract and those that may be reasonably foreseeable on adjacent National Forest System lands, mostly under active coal lease. The Greens Hollow tract is located in the Muddy Creek and North Fork Quitchupah Creek drainages approximately 10.5 miles west of Emery and five miles north of the SUFCO mine portal in Convulsion Canyon. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of 2011. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make the entire Greens Hollow tract available for competitive leasing and underground coal mining, thus extending the life of the SUFCO mine by 8.8 years. Underground works in the SUFCO mine would be extended for long-wall or full extraction mining of an estimated 56.5 million tons of coal. No expansion of existing surface portal facilities would be required and water discharge would be from existing permitted discharge points in Quitchupah Creek. Elements of the proposed action would consist of two ventilation shafts, intake air shafts, utility boreholes, a power transmission route for the ventilation fan system and the mine itself, and associated road access. Alternative 3 would modify the proposed action by specifying sensitive geographical areas that would be protected from subsidence through the use of full-support mining. Areas of substantial surface impact include perennial streams where surface flow could be lost to subsidence-induced cracking or where escarpments could fail. The Record of Decision documents the consent of the Forest Service to the BLM leasing of 6,175 collective acres of NFS lands on the MLNF (6,096 acres) and the FLNF (79 acres) with stipulations for the protection of non-mineral resources as described in Alternative 3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Lease approval would provide opportunities for development of federal coal resources under the forests. The extension of mining operations would continue 363 jobs at the mine, 279 truck driving jobs, and 980 indirect mine support jobs. Coal valued at $1.5 billion would be mined and total royalties and tax revenues would amount to $189 million. The annual production of the SUFCO mine is sufficient for generating electrical energy for the needs of 1.3 million households. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, subsidence is predicted to be up to eight feet in the northern half of the tract and up to 4.3 feet in the southern half. Predicted tensile strains would cause surface fractures and some of these would remain open. Flow reductions caused by diversion of water to underground workings or streambed subsidence could impact Colorado River cutthroat trout and riparian habitat. Construction and drilling noise could disrupt bird and bat species. Subsidence and other mining-caused changes to surface and ground water could affect riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation. JF - EPA number: 140068, Draft Supplemental EIS--416 pages, March 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geology KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Sediment KW - Seismology KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2011%29.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2011%29.&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 - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ARTURO MINE PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16374999; 16062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and reclamation of the Arturo Mine Project on federal land in Elko County, Nevada are proposed. Barrick-Dee Mining Venture Inc. would develop the project by expansion of the existing open-pit Dee Gold Mine which is currently in closure and reclamation. The Dee Gold Mine is located 45 miles northwest of Elko, Nevada and the project area encompasses 3,627 acres, of which 3,551 acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 76 acres are private lands. The project would include the expansion of the existing open pit from one to three lobes, construction of two new waste-rock disposal storage facilities (WRDFs), a new heap leach facility, new support facilities to include an office, substation and associated power transmission lines, water wells, water distribution and sewer systems, landfill, mined material stockpile, communications site, stormwater control features, haul roads and an access road, and continued surface exploration. Mill-grade ore would be transported to the Barrick Gold Mining, Inc.s Goldstrike Mine using the Bootstrap Mine Haul Road and would be processed at the existing mill facilities located eight miles to the southeast of the proposed project. Lowgrade ore would be processed on-site at the proposed heap leach pad and associated processing facilities. Mine operations and processing would continue for approximately 10 years, followed by an estimated three years of site closure and reclamation. Reclamation would occur concurrently with mining to the extent possible. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Single WRDF, Partial Pit Backfill, and No Action alternatives. The agency preferred alternative is the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval would allow the proponent to mine proven and probable ore reserves of approximately 2.2 million ounces of gold and 10.6 million ounces of silver. Total net tax proceeds from the proposed project are estimated at $34.8 million over the mine life. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would disturb 1,960 acres of sagebrush shrublands, two acres of riparian zones/wetland areas, and 543 acres of reclaimed grasslands. The majority would be reclaimed, but 601 acres of the open pit would remain unreclaimed post-closure. Big game species could be impacted by reduction of forage and increased habitat fragmentation. Impacts to 808 acres of important greater sage-grouse habitat would be mitigated by the enhancement and restoration of habitat at offsite locations at a ratio of 2:1. Pit lakes would form as a result of cessation of dewatering at the Goldstrike Mine and predicted water chemistries exceed some water quality standards. Construction would impact 29 prehistoric sites and exclude over 3,000 acres of rangeland from grazing. Long-term impacts would result in the loss of 472 acres of grazing land and a reduction of 95 animal unit months. JF - EPA number: 140066, Final EIS--67 pages, Appendices--88 pages, March 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/14-01+1793 KW - Disposal KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUOLUMNE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1613928554; 16058 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to guide the management of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River corridor within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, California for the next 20 or more years is proposed. The Tuolumne River originates high in the Sierra Nevada and flows westward across Yosemite National Park for 62 miles before it continues into Stanislaus National Forest. The river's two principal sources, the Dana Fork and the Lyell Fork, converge at the eastern end of Tuolumne Meadows, one of the largest subalpine meadows in the Sierra Nevada. The Tuolumne River meanders through Tuolumne Meadows, and then cascades through the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne before it enters the eastern end of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir (still within the park, but not part of the wild and scenic rivers system). Below O'Shaughnessy Dam, the river again is included in the wild and scenic rivers system as it continues through a low-elevation meadow and rocky gorge to the park boundary. More than 90 percent of the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River inside Yosemite National Park flows through congressionally designated wilderness. Tioga Road passes through Tuolumne Meadows, then parallels the Dana Fork and one of its tributaries to the top of Tioga Pass. Rustic facilities for visitors have long been located in the Tuolumne Meadows area, which is accessible from Tioga Road, and at the Glen Aulin High Sierra Camp, which is located west of Tuolumne Meadows and is accessible only by trail. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives would protect and enhance river values by restoring ecological conditions at Tuolumne Meadows and by improving conditions that pose risks to water quality, sensitive meadows, archaeological sites, scenic vistas, and recreational experiences. Alternative 1 would improve opportunities for self-reliant experiences by closing the Tuolumne Meadows Lodge, reducing use levels, and eliminating all commercial services. Alternative 2 would provide opportunities for a greater diversity of day use and a modest increase in campground capacity. Alternative 3 would focus on retaining the traditional character of the visitor experience in a historic setting that would remain essentially unchanged. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would retain the traditional overnight use and reorient day use to protect river values and improve opportunities for short-term visitors. Access to Tuolumne Meadows would be improved by directing vehicles to an increased number of spaces in formal parking areas, which would replace the informal roadside parking. A new visitor contact station on the south side of Tioga Road would be located closer to the Tuolumne store and the campground and would serve as the primary trailhead for Parsons Lodge. New hiking trails would connect the visitor contact station, the campground, Parsons Lodge, and other facilities along the road. Informal trails that are damaging vegetation would be restored to natural conditions. All alternatives would provide for traditional cultural practices by American Indian tribes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would protect the free-flowing condition, water quality, and the outstandingly remarkable values that make Tuolumne River worthy of designation. The preferred alternative would strike a balance between maintaining the historic setting of the river corridor, maintaining a diversity of recreational opportunities, and allowing for extensive natural resource management at Tuolumne Meadows to restore natural ecosystem function to the extent possible. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration activities and facility construction would have minor adverse impacts. New development to accommodate a campground redesign could affect 5.3 acres of forested wetlands in an already disturbed location. The removal of buildings from historic districts and the removal of cabins from the Glen Aulin High Sierra Camp would be addressed through mitigation. Implementation of the site plan at Tuolumne Meadows could disturb archaeological sites and the new visitor contact station and parking area south of Tioga Road would be visible from some key observation points. JF - EPA number: 140062, Final EIS Volume I--355 pages, Volume II--468 pages, Volume III--534 pages, March 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1613928554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUOLUMNE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TUOLUMNE+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT RALEIGH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1613928553; 16068 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan (GMP) for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site in Dare County, North Carolina is proposed. The 512.9-acre site is located on the north end of Roanoke Island, which is situated between the coastal mainland of northeastern North Carolina and the barrier island known as Bodie Island. Fort Raleigh National Historic Site was established in 1941 to preserve land declared to be of national significance as a portion of the colonial settlement or settlements established in America by Sir Walter Raleigh between 1587 and 1591. The national historic site is unique in the National Park Service (NPS) system because of the preservation and interpretation of the history of the first English attempts at colonization in the New World, and the history of Native Americans, European Americans and African Americans on Roanoke Island. The national historic site also preserves the amphitheater and support facilities associated with the continuing production of the nations first and longest running outdoor symphonic drama, The Lost Colony. The drama is entirely managed and produced by the Roanoke Island Historical Association. Since the 1964 master plan, the boundary of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site has expanded as well as the interpretive mission. Three management alternatives are explored in this final EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and reflects current conditions and management. The action alternatives differ mainly in the level of partnerships, extent of research, the role of research in interpretation, level of trail development, and number of staff proposed. Under Alternative B, the national historic site would greatly expand the scope of its partnerships through greater partner involvement in interpretation of the Roanoke Voyages. By coordinating and expanding efforts among The Elizabethan Gardens, Roanoke Island Historical Association, and the NPS, visitors would be inspired to spend more time in the national historic site. The feasibility of an expanded waterside theater campus, including a new visitor center annex, would be evaluated. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, the national historic site would enhance its partnership with the First Colony Foundation, a North Carolina non-profit organization dedicated to conducting archaeological and historical research, combined with public education and interpretation. Other aspects of this alternative would include: partnerships with organizations that focus on natural and cultural resource topics; inclusion of archeology as a significant aspect of the research program at the site; establishment of a new trail to complete the loop between the Freedom Trail and Highway 64; maintenance of the current Lindsay Warren Visitor Center as the primary visitor orientation facility; implementation of an NPS researcher-in-the-park program; and promotion of increased research use of collections at the Museum Resource Center. Two residential structures on the north shore of the site that have been used for housing for cast and crew of the historic drama are threatened by shoreline erosion and will be removed. In addition, a shoreline erosion management plan will be prepared. Annual operating costs for alternatives B and C are estimated in 2011 dollars at $1.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP would provide direction for the site over the next 15 to 20 years and the establishment of management zones would provide effective means to improve operations. Continuation of invasive species control would provide indirect beneficial effects to habitat of federally listed species of concern: black rail and northern diamondback terrapin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential development of limited new trails would result in a loss of habitat and native plants in localized areas with minor adverse effects. Project activities may fragment and reduce habitat quality for a variety of wildlife, including big game, migratory birds, and other sensitive species. JF - EPA number: 140072, Final EIS--333 pages, March 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Demolition KW - Erosion KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Shores KW - Fort Raleigh National Historic Site KW - North Carolina KW - Roanoke Island KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1613928553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+RALEIGH+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=FORT+RALEIGH+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN BASIN ENERGY CONNECT PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO. AN - 1613928551; 16059 AB - PURPOSE: A right-of-way grant for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. (Tri-State) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new 230 kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line, access roads, two new substations, and expansion of an existing substation is proposed. The proposed 65-mile transmission line would run from near Shiprock, New Mexico to Ignacio, Colorado and much of the new transmission line would be located adjacent to existing transmission lines. Three alternatives, including a no action alternative, were examined in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be constructed. The Preferred Alternative includes a 230 kV transmission line that is approximately 64.3 miles long. The new 230 kV transmission line would originate at Westerns existing Shiprock Substation and would end at the Iron Horse Substation located near Ignacio, Colorado. The Preferred Alternative would include the following components: (1) a new 345 kV to 230 kV substation (Three Rivers Substation near Westerns existing Shiprock Substation; (2) approximately 33.1 miles of new double-circuit-capable 230 kV transmission line from the new Three Rivers Substation to the area north of the proposed Kiffen Canyon Substation to Segment 5 where the transmission line would turn east and parallel the New Mexico/Colorado state line; (3) a new 230 kV substation (Kiffen Canyon Substation near the existing City of Farmington 115 kV Glade Tap Substation; (4) approximately 31.2 miles of new single-circuit 230 kV transmission line between Segment 5 to existing Iron Horse Substation; (5) an expansion of the Iron Horse Substation; (5) access roads; and (6) overhead ground wire for the entire 230 kV transmission line. The Proposed Action Alternative includes a 230 kV transmission line that is approximately 64.9 miles long. The Proposed Action would follow a slightly different alignment and would have a different access road network than what is proposed for the Preferred Alternative. The Proposed Action would include: (1) a new 345 kV to 230 kV substation (Three Rivers Substation); (2) approximately 33.7 miles of new double-circuit-capable 230 kV transmission line from the new Three Rivers Substation to the New Mexico/Colorado state line; (3) approximately 31.2 miles of new single-circuit 230 kV transmission line between the proposed New Mexico/Colorado state line and the existing Iron Horse Substation; (4) an expansion of the Iron Horse Substation; (5) access roads; and (6) overhead ground wire for the entire 230 kV transmission line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would deliver electricity generated at existing facilities to improve reliability of the transmission system and meet increase demand in the San Juan Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The area of land temporarily affected by ground-disturbing activities for transmission line structures, substations, and access roads is estimated at 800 acres for the Preferred Alternative and approximately 827 acres for the Proposed Action. About 182 acres for the Preferred Alternative and 183 acres for the Proposed Action would be permanently affected. The level of change to the landscape would be low to moderate. Permanent direct effects include the loss of potential farmlands due to the footprint of support structures, substations, and new access roads. Total area of permanent disturbance would be about 15-7-17.5 acres. The project would intersect 48 ephemeral drainages that are potential waters of the US as well as about 1.79 acres of 100-year floodplains. There is possible increased risk of collisions for some bird species. The Preferred Alternative intersects with 36 historic properties, while the Proposed Action intersects with 48 historical properties. JF - EPA number: 140063, Draft EIS--646 pages, March 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-13-06-2850 KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Roads KW - Transmission Liens KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Floodplains KW - Water Resources KW - Soils KW - Land Use KW - Recreation Areas KW - Historic Sites KW - Birds KW - Colorado KW - New Mexico KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1613928551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+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, Farmington, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OSC) GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITIES, MID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTH ATLANTIC PLANNING AREAS. AN - 1563040246; 16053 AB - PURPOSE: Geological and geophysical (G&G) activities associated with oil and gas exploration and production, renewable energy, and marine minerals on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are proposed. The 330,032-square-mile area of interest (AOI) includes U.S. Atlantic waters from the mouth of Delaware Bay to just south of Cape Canaveral, Florida, and from the shoreline to 350 nautical miles from shore. The AOI includes the Mid- and South-Atlantic Planning Areas, as well as adjacent State waters outside of estuaries. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has received nine permit requests for seismic airgun surveys in support of oil and gas exploration, and industry has expressed interest in expanding activities into Atlantic offshore waters. The following types of G&G activities projected to occur between 2012 and 2020 are included in this programmatic EIS: various types of deep penetration seismic airgun surveys used almost exclusively for oil and gas exploration and development; other types of surveys and sampling activities used only in support of oil and gas exploration and development, including electromagnetic surveys, deep stratigraphic and shallow test drilling, and various remote sensing methods; high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys used to detect geohazards, archaeological resources, and certain types of benthic communities; and geological and geotechnical bottom sampling used to assess the suitability of seafloor sediments for supporting structures (e.g., platforms, pipelines, cables, wind turbines) or to evaluate the quantity and quality of sand for beach nourishment projects. Key issues include the effects of active acoustic sound sources, vessel and equipment noise, vessel traffic, aircraft traffic and noise, trash and debris, and accidental fuel spills. Three alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative A is the proposed action and would authorize G&G activities in support of all BOEM program areas throughout the entire AOI. Mitigation measures would include: a seismic airgun survey protocol; an HRG survey protocol; guidance for vessel strike avoidance; guidance for marine debris awareness; avoidance and reporting requirements for historic and prehistoric sites; avoidance of sensitive benthic communities; guidance for activities in or near National Marine Sanctuaries; and guidance for military and National Aeronautics and Space Administration coordination. Alternative B is identical to Alternative A with respect to the G&G activities that could be conducted and the expected activity levels. However, mitigation measures would: expand the time-area closure for North Atlantic right whales that was developed for Alternative A; add a time-area closure offshore Brevard County, Florida, to protect nesting sea turtles; require a 25-mile separation distance between concurrent seismic airgun surveys; and require the use of passive acoustic monitoring as part of the seismic airgun survey protocol. Under Alternative C (No Action Alternative), no G&G activities associated with oil and gas exploration would occur in the AOI. However, permitting and postlease G&G activities for renewable energy development and marine minerals use would continue to occur on a case-by-case basis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed activities would provide information about the location and extent of oil and gas reserves, seafloor conditions for oil and gas or renewable energy installations, and marine minerals deposits off the U.S. Atlantic Coast. State-of-the-practice G&G data and information would also be used to ensure the proper use and conservation of OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair market value for the leasing of public lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic airgun surveys could result in harassment of endangered marine species including North Atlantic right whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, humpback whale, and sperm whale. No mortalities would be expected because there has been no observation of direct physical injury or death to marine mammals from airguns. Offshore surveys could temporarily displace breeding and nesting adult turtles during the nesting season, particularly on the beaches of southeast Florida and within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge which support a high level of sea turtle nesting. Accidental fuel spills in offshore waters could impact listed bird species such as piping plover, roseate tern, red knot, and Bermuda petrel. JF - EPA number: 140057, Final EIS Volume I--788 pages, Volume II--656 pages, Volume III--714 pages, March 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Mineral Resources KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Wildlife KW - Florida KW - Georgia KW - Maryland KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Delaware KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals 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/1563040246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTIC+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OSC%29+GEOLOGICAL+AND+GEOPHYSICAL+ACTIVITIES%2C+MID-ATLANTIC+AND+SOUTH+ATLANTIC+PLANNING+AREAS.&rft.title=ATLANTIC+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OSC%29+GEOLOGICAL+AND+GEOPHYSICAL+ACTIVITIES%2C+MID-ATLANTIC+AND+SOUTH+ATLANTIC+PLANNING+AREAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS IN-SITU LEACH RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING (FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 2009). AN - 1563040244; 16055 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source and byproduct material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery (ISR) facility north of the town of Moorcroft and Interstate 90 in Crook County, Wyoming is proposed. Strata Energy Inc. submitted a license application in January 2011 for the Ross ISR Project, which would be located in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, one of four regions specified in the final generic EIS of June 2009 for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. The ISR process involves injecting water to which chemicals have been added, referred to as lixiviant, into the aquifer bearing the uranium ore. The chemicals in the lixiviant dissolve the uranium from the rock within the aquifer. Ground water containing dissolved uranium is then pumped from the ore-zone aquifer, processed through ion-exchange columns to remove the uranium from the lixiviant, and then the uranium is precipitated into a solid material called yellowcake. Most of the water is then reused for uranium recovery. This final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would issue a license for the Ross Project which would host 15 to 25 wellfield areas (a total of 1,400 to 2,000 recovery and injection wells) on 1,721 acres in the north half of the 56-square-mile Lance District. Groups of wells within a wellfield would be connected with piping to a central collection facility and the wellfields would be surrounded by a perimeter ring of monitoring wells. Injection wells would be used to introduce lixiviant into the uranium mineralization; recovery wells would be used to extract uranium-bearing solutions; and monitoring wells would be used to identify and assess impacts of ongoing operations and detect groundwater excursions. The ISR facility would include a central processing plant (CPP) that houses the uranium- and vanadium-processing equipment, drying and packaging equipment, and water-treatment equipment. Additional facilities would include a chemical storage area, a warehouse, maintenance and administration buildings, two double-lined surface impoundments, a sediment impoundment, and five deep injection wells. The facility could be used to process uranium-loaded resins from satellite projects within the Lance District operated by the applicant, or from other offsite uranium-recovery projects not operated by the applicant, or from offsite water-treatment operations. With that option, the life of the facility would be extended to 14 years or more. Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), the NRC would not issue a license and no uranium would be allowed to be recovered from the subsurface ore zone. Under Alternative 3, the CPP and surface impoundments would be constructed at a site north of the proposed location, but the wellfields would remain in the same locations as in the proposed action. This alternative facility location would require additional, substantial earth-moving to construct the surface impoundments, but a containment barrier wall would not be required. The preliminary NRC staff recommendation is that a source and byproduct material license be issued as requested, unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR uranium recovery with mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. Increased employment, economic activity, and tax revenues would benefit Crook County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term potential impacts of lixiviant excursions from uranium-recovery operation to the ore-zone aquifer outside the active ISR area would be small to moderate. With respect to the deep aquifers where injection of liquid byproduct wastes would occur, regular monitoring of the water quality of the injected brine would ensure that potential impacts to ground-water quantity and quality in the deep aquifers would be small. Archaeological and historical sites may be disturbed by construction. Within the area of potential effect at the proposed project, 25 sites are being treated as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Construction traffic is expected to increase traffic volume by 400 percent on the New Haven Road south of the project area. Traffic volume associated with facility and wellfield operation would be double that of 2010 levels. JF - EPA number: 140059, Final Supplemental EIS--809 pages, March 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910, Suppl. 5 KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1563040244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT NORTHEAST CONNECTOR PROJECT, QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 1563040243; 16057 AB - PURPOSE: A gas pipeline proposed by the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (Transco) is presented. The Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Rockaway Project) would consist of two components: a 26-inch diameter natural gas pipeline (the Rockaway Delivery Lateral) and associated facilities, and a metering and regulating (M&R) facility with associated piping and equipment. The new pipeline would extend approximately 3.2 miles from an offshore interconnect with Transcos existing 26-inch-diameter Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) in the Atlantic Ocean, to an onshore delivery point at an interconnection with National Grids pipeline system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The new pipeline would connect to the LNYBL via a subsea hot-tap and manifold. A portion of the new pipeline would be constructed on federal land (both offshore and onshore) within the Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), which is managed by the National Park Service. The remainder would be built on submerged lands owned by New York State and on land owned by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposed to add incremental compression at its existing Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania; Compressor Station 205 in Mercer County, New Jersey; and Compressor Station 207 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Transco would replace three existing natural gas-fired reciprocating engines with two new electric motor drives at Compressor Station 195, and uprate existing electric-driven motors at Compressor Stations 205 and 207. These modifications would occur on lands owned by Transco within the existing compressor station sites. The modifications to the compressor stations would result in the net addition of 16,940 horsepower of compression on Transcos existing system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enhance the reliability and flexibility of National Grids distribution system in New York City and provide a new incremental (i.e. additional) supply of natural gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would create: (1) significant impacts on marine wildlife and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) due to pile driving and other effects associated with offshore construction; (2) impacts on special status species, including marine mammals; (3) impacts on cultural resource sites, particularly the historic airplane hangar complex that would house the M&R facility; (4) cumulative impacts; and (5) air quality and noise impacts. JF - EPA number: 140061, Final EIS--374 pages, Appendices--758 pages, March 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Pipelines KW - Energy Resources KW - Natural Gas KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fish KW - Marine Mammals KW - Historic Sites KW - Power Plants KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Electric Power KW - New York KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - Gateway National Recreation Area KW - National Gas Act of 1938, Section 7c Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1563040243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-19 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Characterizing potentially induced earthquake rate changes in the Brawley seismic zone, CA AN - 1752577622; 2016-000898 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Llenos, A L AU - Michael (USGs), A J AU - Freymuller, Jeff T AU - Haeussler, Peter J Y1 - 2014/03// PY - 2014 DA - March 2014 SP - 488 EP - 489 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 85 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - geothermal energy KW - California KW - seismic zoning KW - geothermal fields KW - swarms KW - seismicity KW - Imperial County California KW - induced earthquakes KW - earthquakes KW - Brawley Fault KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1752577622?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Characterizing+potentially+induced+earthquake+rate+changes+in+the+Brawley+seismic+zone%2C+CA&rft.au=Llenos%2C+A+L%3BMichael+%28USGs%29%2C+A+J%3BFreymuller%2C+Jeff+T%3BHaeussler%2C+Peter+J&rft.aulast=Llenos&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2014-03-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=488&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2014 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Brawley Fault; California; earthquakes; geothermal energy; geothermal fields; Imperial County California; induced earthquakes; seismic zoning; seismicity; swarms; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCHOA MINE PROJECT, LEA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16382172; 16048 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a new underground mine to extract polyhalite ore for the production of sulfate of potash in southern Lea County, New Mexico is proposed. Surface land ownership in the project area consists of 22 percent public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 53 percent managed by the State of New Mexico, and 25 percent privately owned. Approximately 55 percent of the minerals within the proposed mine area is owned by the federal government. As proposed by Intercontinental Potash Corporation USA (ICP), the Ochoa Mine project area would encompass a total of 31,137 acres. The production of sulfate of potash involves mining raw polyhalite approximately 1,500 feet underground in the Rustler formation and hoisting it to the surface for crushing, calcinatiuon, leaching, and granulation to produce saleable products. The final products would be moved by truck to a loadout facility near Jal, New Mexico, where it would be loaded on trains and shipped. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A is the proposed action and would involve approval of ICPs Ochoa Mine plan of operations, granting new rights-of-way (ROWs), and approval of preference rights leases to allow the mining and processing of polyhalite ore to produce the fertilizer sulfate of potash, a component of agricultural fertilizer. The project would include: development of an underground mine to be accessed by a shaft and a ramp; construction and operation of office and processing facilities including the ore processing plant, dry stack tailings pile, and evaporation ponds on BLM land; development of up to eight brackish water wells and an 11-mile new water pipeline; and a railroad loadout facility near Jal, New Mexico. Processing would require pumping a maximum of 4,000 gallons per minute of groundwater from the Capitan Reef Aquifer. Under Alternative B, the mine plan of operations would be approved, but the tailings stockpile would be reduced in volume or height to minimize visual impacts. Under Alternative C, the proposed operations and processing methods would be approved, but standards and guidance for managing concurrent development of both potash and fluid minerals (oil and gas) would be established. Under Alternative D, the evaporation ponds and tailings stockpile would be located to the east of the site described under the proposed action. The proposed project would operate for 50 years followed by decommissioning and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of ICPs Ochoa Mine, requested ROWs, and preference right leases would provide access for technically viable development of the federal potash resources. Long-term operations would provide 496 jobs, federal and state mineral royalties, and tax revenues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development would disturb 2,400 acres impacting 2,270 acres of mesquite upland scrub and 92 acres of desert scrub vegetation. Mitigation measures would minimize impacts to wildlife. Subsidence would occur in areas overlying the 90 percent extraction rate of polyhalite ore. The maximum depth of subsidence at the surface would be four feet within 1,500 feet beyond the edge of the mine workings. Maximum drawdown of the Capitan Aquifer is predicted to be 650 feet in the well field after 50 years of pumping, but no effect on shallow potable groundwater quantity is expected. Flows to the Pecos River would be slightly reduced and 218 animal unit months of livestock grazing would be lost due to long-term project use. The proposed action would result in visual impacts from processing facilities and the tailings stockpile. JF - EPA number: 140052, Final EIS--633 pages, February 28, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-14-02-3500 KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCHOA+MINE+PROJECT%2C+LEA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OCHOA+MINE+PROJECT%2C+LEA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENERGY GATEWAY SOUTH TRANSMISSION PROJECT LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, WYOMING, COLORADO, AND UTAH. AN - 16392570; 16041 AB - PURPOSE: The impacts of granting right-of-way across federal land to PacificCorp (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining the single-circuit, alternating-current, 500-kilovolt transmission line and amending Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Forest Service land-use plans to accommodate the proposed transmission line are analyzed. The transmission line would begin near Medicine Bow, Carbon County, Wyoming, at the planned Aeolus Substation and would extend south and west to the Clover Substation (currently under construction) near Mona, Juab County, Utah, a distance between 400 and 500 miles, depending on the route selected. The project also includes: (1) two series compensation stations at points between the Aeolus and Clover substations to improve transport capacity and efficiency of the transmission line; (2) the addition of new substation equipment for electrically connecting the transmission line at the Aeolus and Clover substations and the existing Mona Substation; (3) communication regeneration stations associated with the transmission line; (4) access roads to the transmission line structures where needed and where existing access is not available; (5) other ancillary facilities; (6) rebuilding and reconfiguring two existing 345k transmission lines between the Clover and Mona substations; and (7) the existing Mona to Huntington 345k transmission line would be rerouted through the Clover Substation. This draft EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action alternative. Alternative COUT-A Alternative COUT-A begins at a point northeast of Rangely, Colorado, where the Wyoming to Colorado Aeolus to U.S. Highway 40 (WYCO) alternative routes terminate. From this point, the alternative route parallels, on the south side, the Bears Ears to Bonanza 345kV and the Hayden to Artesia 138kV transmission lines to the west toward the Colorado and Utah border. The alternative route parallels the existing Bonanza to Mona 345kV transmission line west in the Uinta Basin, south of Roosevelt, Utah and north of Duchesne, Utah, continuing through the Fruitland, Utah, area. From there it continues southwest through the Uinta National Forest south of Strawberry Reservoir (avoiding the Chipman Creek Inventoried Roadless Area [IRA]) and crosses U.S. Highway 6 near the Sheep Creek Road intersection. Upon crossing U.S. Highway 6, the alternative route continues paralleling the Bonanza to Mona 345kV transmission line toward Thistle, Utah, where it turns south and crosses U.S. Highway 89 near Birdseye, Utah, then continuing south/southwest to a point approximately 5 miles north of Fountain Green, Utah. The alternative route continues paralleling the Bonanza to Mona 345kV transmission line west through Salt Creek Canyon, south of Mount Nebo, toward Nephi, Utah, and the Clover Substation. Alternative COUT-B begins similarly to Alternative COUT-A, but then parallels the existing Bears Ears to Bonanza 345kV line west for approximately 45 miles to a point near Myton, Utah. Alternative COUT-B includes five route variations. Alternative COUT-C begins at a point northeast of Rangely, Colorado, where the Wyoming to Colorado Aeolus to U.S. Highway 40 (WYCO) alternative routes terminate. From this point, the alternative route parallels the Bears Ears to Bonanza 345kV and the Hayden to Artesia 138kV transmission lines to the west toward the Colorado/Utah border. Alternative COUT-H, the applicant preferred alternative, begins at a point northeast of Rangely, Colorado, where the Wyoming to Colorado Aeolus to U.S. Highway 40 (WYCO) alternative routes terminate. From this point, the alternative route parallels the Bears Ears to Bonanza 345kV and the Hayden to Artesia 138kV transmission lines to the west toward the Colorado and Utah border. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project will provide up to 1,500 megawatts of capacity to meet current and forecasted needs of the applicants customers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Moderate impacts on soils would occur in localized areas where soils on steep slopes are highly susceptible to water or wind erosion crossed by new or improved access roads. Each route grouping has a considerable amount of moderate to high sensitivity for paleontological resources because of the large number of geological formations in the Project area known to produce fossils. Quantitative analysis has shown that the alternative routes in Utah would affect the most water resources, followed by those routes in Colorado and then Wyoming. Overall, impacts in each route grouping are primarily low to moderate with big sagebrush and smaller areas of shrub/shrub steppe and pinyon-juniper vegetation communities being the primary types crossed by all alternative routes. All alternative routes and route variations considered for the Project cross potential yellow-billed cuckoo potential habitat. Alternative WYCO-D and Route Variation WYCO-D-1 are the only WYCO alternative routes that would cross potential Mexican spotted owl habitats. JF - EPA number: 140045, Draft EIS Volume I, Volume II, February 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-14/009+5001 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Land Use KW - Forests KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Soils KW - Wyoming KW - Utah KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO BENEFIT NATIVE SPECIES BY REDUCING THE ABUNDANCE OF LAKE TROUT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 16383823; 16038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of fisheries population management tools, including angling and netting, to reduce the population of non-native lake trout in Flathead Lake, Lake and Flathead Counties, Montana is proposed. With a surface area of approximately 195 square miles, Flathead Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake in the western United States and one of the cleanest lakes in the world for its size and type. The south half of Flathead Lake is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks are the lead entities for fisheries co-management of the Flathead Lake and River System. Current trends indicate that the implementation of the co-management plan has not decreased lake trout numbers and has not increased bull trout numbers. Bull trout were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1998. Research indicates that bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout declines are the result of lake trout increases, which have cascaded through the Flathead Lake foodweb. The losses of bull trout to predation by lake trout are estimated to be at least 19,000 bull trout annually. Because increases in the lake trout population have put native trout at risk, there is a need to reduce the risk through the implementation of additional management actions or strategies. Four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the general harvest using current fishing regulations for lake trout in Flathead Lake and continue the fishing contests known as Mack Days using the 2012 regulations. The action alternatives would reduce the population of adult lake trout (age eight and older) relative to the 2010 levels by the following percentages: Alternative B, 25 percent; Alternative C, 50 percent; and Alternative D, 75 percent. All three would continue the general harvest, change the regulations to make it legal to keep lake trout from 30 to 36 inches long, continue Mack Days, and if necessary use a mix of tools such as bounties, commercial fishing, targeted gillnets and trapnets to reach and maintain their respective reductions in adult lake trout numbers. Lakewide bounties would require legislative approval. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed strategies would reduce the population of non-native lake trout in Flathead Lake, increase and protect native trout populations (bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout), balance trade-offs between native species conservation and non-native species reduction to maintain a viable recreational/subsistence fishery, and protect the high quality water and habitat characteristics of Flathead Lake and its watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the method of harvest employed for lake trout, some bycatch of bull trout would be inevitable. Changes in abundance of lake trout would likely cause a decline in total fishing trips to Flathead Lake, however some of the predicted reduction in trips might be negated by increases in trips to target other species in the lake or increases in trips to the Flathead River system. JF - EPA number: 140042, Final EIS--769 pages, February 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Water KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Flathead Indian Reservation KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROPOSED+STRATEGIES+TO+BENEFIT+NATIVE+SPECIES+BY+REDUCING+THE+ABUNDANCE+OF+LAKE+TROUT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=PROPOSED+STRATEGIES+TO+BENEFIT+NATIVE+SPECIES+BY+REDUCING+THE+ABUNDANCE+OF+LAKE+TROUT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pablo, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED GREATER MOOSES TOOTH ONE DEVELOPMENT PROECT, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2004). AN - 1561100912; 16036 AB - PURPOSE: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI) is proposing to produce hydrocarbon resources from a surface location on federal oil and gas lease AA-081798 in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A0. The proposed Greater Mooses Tooth One (GMT1) project includes a drill site in the GMTU, a pipeline and road corridor to CPAI facilities at Colville Delta 5 (CD5), an ancillary water pipeline between CD1 and CD4, and a new gravel source. CD1, CD2, CD3, and CD4 are existing facilities. CD5 is currently authorized and expected to be in operation by late 2015. Development of the GMT1 project is dependent upon construction of CD5. This draft supplemental EIS was developed to evaluate new circumstances and information which have arisen since the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (ASDP) final EIS was issued in September 2004, as well as to address changes to CPAIs proposed development plan for GMT1. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A is the CPAI Proposed Project, which includes the following components: (1) 11.8 acres gravel drill site with capacity for 33 wells; (2) 7.8 mile long gravel access road connecting GMT1 to CD5; (3) 8.1 mile long elevated pipeline, with messenger cable (power and fiber optic lines) on Vertical Support Members (VSMs), from GMT1 to CD5; (4) two 0.35-acre manual valve gravel pads; (5) bridges over Crea Creek and Tinmiaqsigvik (Ublutuoch) River capable of supporting drill rig transport; (6) 3.3 mile long pipeline rack on VSMs from CD1 to CD4N; (7) 6.1 mile 14 injection water pipeline on existing VSMs from CD4N to CDs; (8) pipeline intersections (tie-ins) at CD5 and CD1/APF; (9) gravel supply from Clover site and/or the ASRC Mine Site; and (9) approximately 39-28 miles of ice road for construction support. Alternative B would require a slightly longer road and pipeline than Alternative A, as well as an additional pad of approximately 0.7 acres that would be required for additional automatic shut-off valves, pipeline pigging capability, and valve maintenance activity with vehicle access. Alternative C would have a larger footprint than Alternative A, therefore requiring additional fill. Alternative D defines development in which there is no year-round road access between GMT1 and the existing APF. In this roadless or limited access scenario, transportation to GMT1 from the existing APF would be primarily by aircraft approximately nine months of the year, and primarily via ice road approximately three months of the year. To access the drill site, during the winter season on an ice road would be constructed along a corridor from the seasonal Alpine ice road to the airstrip. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facility would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. JF - EPA number: 140040, Draft Supplemental EIS Volume I--480 pages, Volume II--43 pages, Volume III--664 pages, February 21, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-14/002+5101+AK9300 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1561100912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2011-11-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=QUARTZSITE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+LA+PAZ+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, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOAPA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16382074; 16032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Moapa Solar Energy Center (MSEC) on the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. Moapa Solar, LLC has entered into an agreement with the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians to lease land, for up to 30 years, for the proposed facility. Project components would include: a photovoltaic (PV) solar power generation facility, generation interconnection (gen-tie) lines that would interconnect the project to the regional electrical transmission grid, a water pipeline, and an access road between the facility and a frontage road along the west side of Interstate 15 (I-15). The solar facility and the water pipeline would be located wholly on the Reservation. The proposed 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV gen-tie lines and the access road would be located on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Reservation lands. This final EIS analyzes four project alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under the proposed action, a solar field utilizing crystalline silicon or thin-film PV panels mounted on single-axis trackers would generate up to 200 megawatts (MW) of energy. The highest point on the single axis-trackers would be about six to 12 feet, occurring during the morning and evening hours when the panels are tilted to face the rising or setting sun. The CSP Project Alternative would use AREVA CSP technology which focuses sunlight to receivers where the heat is used to produce steam that creates electricity via a conventional steam turbine generator. Primary components would include: a solar field containing mirrors that concentrate sunlight onto solar receivers mounted on 80-foot towers, steam turbine generators, a thermal energy storage system, and a plant control system. The eSolar CSP Technology Alternative would employ many small, flat heliostats focused to reflect sunlight onto receivers mounted on 250-foot towers. Under this alternative, the MSEC Project would include three of these modules, with 36 receivers, for a total size of 138 MW on the 850-acre site. Under the Dry-Cooling Alternative, either of the CSP alternatives described above would be constructed using a dry-cooling technology rather than the wet-cooling technology proposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would create economic development opportunity for the Tribe, provide lease income as a long-term economically viable revenue source, create new jobs and employment opportunities for Tribal members, and develop sustainable renewable resources. The provision of clean renewable electricity generation from the Tribes solar resources would also assist the federal government, the state of Nevada, and neighboring states meet their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would impact up to 962 acres of vegetation and could spread invasive or noxious species. The loss of habitat and foraging area would directly impact desert tortoise. Groundwater withdrawal would have minor impacts to groundwater levels and spring flows. The proposed MSEC could affect views from I-15 and the 250-foot towers proposed under the eSolar CSP Technology Alternative would make the project even more visible. JF - EPA number: 140036, Final EIS Volume I--380 pages, Volume II--790 pages, February 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Indian Reservations KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1558782669; 16033 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to manage the Merced River corridor in Yosemite National Park, California for the next 20 years is proposed. The Merced Wild and Scenic River includes 122 miles of the Merced River on the western side of the Sierra Nevada range. The National Park Service manages 81 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River through Yosemite National Park, including the headwaters and both the Merced River main stem and the South Fork Merced River. As the Merced River flows outside Yosemite's western boundary, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage the next 41 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Ecological processes between the river and its floodplain support a wide range of riparian and meadow communities providing habitat for a rich diversity of plants and wildlife. The rivers cultural heritage includes American Indian cultural traditions that continue to the present day, along with the history associated with one of the nations first national parks. The Merced River attracts millions of visitors who enjoy opportunities for recreation, education, reflection, and inspiration in the sublime beauty of the river corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives would protect and enhance river values by improving conditions that threaten sensitive meadows, archaeological resources, and scenic vistas. Alternative 2 would maximize the restoration of the 100-year floodplain by removing infrastructure not essential to resource-related recreation, and create a more self-reliant visitor experience with fewer commercial services. Alternative 3 would emphasize a dispersed visitor experience and extensive riverbank restoration. Alternative 4 would focus on providing resource-based visitor experiences with large increases in overnight camping capacity and a moderate decrease in the overnight lodging capacity. The preferred Alternative 5 would include significant restoration within 100 feet of the river and in meadow and riparian areas, maintaining daily visitation in Yosemite Valley to accommodate peak levels similar to those observed in recent years, reducing unnecessary facilities and services, and converting facilities from administrative use to public use where feasible. Alternative 6 would include limited restoration within 100 feet of the river and in meadow and riparian areas, infrastructure improvements to accommodate growth in peak daily visitation in Yosemite Valley, and expansion of facilities and services to allow for diversified visitor experiences. Under all the action alternatives, a 150-foot riparian buffer, measured from the ordinary high-water mark, would be protected and enhanced corridor-wide. Eroded riverbanks would be repaired through restoration, and vulnerable riverbanks and riparian vegetation would be protected from trampling. All commercial stock day rides would be discontinued in Yosemite Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would protect the rivers free-flowing condition, water quality, and the outstandingly remarkable values that make it worthy of designation. The preferred alternative would restore 203 acres of meadow and riparian habitat while maintaining current peak visitation levels without yet having to implement a day-use permit system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rerouting, revegetating, and constructing a boardwalk along a portion of the Valley Loop Trail, as well as other restoration activities and removal of a bridge, would result in a short-term adverse impact. Actions to protect and enhance river values would result in long-term adverse impacts on historic districts. JF - EPA number: 140037, Final EIS Volume I--592 pages, Volume II--1,413 pages, Volume III--1,032 pages, Executive Summary--6 pages, February 14, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bank Protection KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1558782669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PREHISTORIC TRACKWAYS NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1760835504; 16369 AB - PURPOSE: The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers and evaluates alternative management strategies and their potential effects on lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Managements Las Cruces District Office in south-central New Mexico. The Planning Area is located within Dona Ana County and includes approximately 5,280 surface acres and 4,812 acres of Federal minerals administered by the Las Cruces District Office. BLM management decisions considered in the Plan must be consistent with the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. This EIS analyzes four alternatives in detail. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is defined by the Mimbres RMP (1993) and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which is legislation designating the Monument. This Alternative provides for a baseline of comparison against the other alternatives. Alternative B is the most restrictive in human interventions; use of the Monuments resources would be minimal, designed towards more resource preservation, and natural processes would continue at the current rate. Alternative C, the BLMs preferred alternative, strives to balance the protection and enhancement of natural and paleontological values with resource uses and development. Alternative D emphasizes resource uses and provides for the greatest opportunities for resource uses, development, and recreation while still following the constraints of the designating Legislation. Upon completion, the RMP will provide direction for the long-term management of all public land and resources within the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument. JF - EPA number: 140375, Final EIS, December 29, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Prehistoric Trackway National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1760835504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-02-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PREHISTORIC+TRACKWAYS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=PREHISTORIC+TRACKWAYS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DONA+ANA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANACOSTIA PARK WETLAND AND RESIDENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. AN - 16391303; 16360 AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this plan is to guide and direct the actions of the National Park Service (NPS) in the management of wetlands and resident (non-migratory) Canada geese at Anacostia Park. To satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, the plan would be implemented through the environmental impact statement (EIS), which would facilitate the protection of wetland functions within the park. The NEPA of 1969 process was conducted in accordance with the NPS regulations for implementing NEPA, and it examined the consequences of the proposed management alternatives and the no action alternative on the environment. This plan/EIS would be an integrated tool for the long-term planning and management of restored wetlands and resident Canada geese at the park. While the creation of any new wetlands is outside the scope of this plan/EIS and would require additional NEPA compliance, the concepts presented in this plan/EIS would apply to previously restored wetlands and any wetlands restored in the future at Anacostia Park. The alternatives evaluated in this plan/EIS rely on the use of adaptive management to guide the implementation of the preferred alternative, which would consist of a series of techniques, available for use by the park to manage wetlands and resident Canada geese within the park. To satisfy NEPA requirements, this plan/EIS presents the alternatives considered during the NEPA process, the affected environment, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and the agency consultation and coordination conducted to support this project. Where NEPA analysis is suggested or required for site-specific management or techniques carried out under the guidance of this document, future analyses would tier to or reference this plan/EIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis, when required, would focus on issues, alternatives, and environmental effects unique to the project area, if not already discussed in this plan/EIS and subsequent record of decision (ROD), and may be categorically excluded, or documented in either an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS, depending on the significance of the effects. JF - EPA number: 140366, Final EIS, December 19, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plan KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Anacostia Park KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE BETWEEN BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16388546; 16371 AB - PURPOSE: The Bureau of Land Management proposes to exchange certain federal lands for properties owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The selected public lands (5,799 acres) and offered Tribal lands (1,470 acres) occur within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives based on varying amounts of public lands to be exchanged for Tribal lands, as well as the no action alternative. The purpose of the exchange is to promote effective and efficient management of the public and Tribal lands by reducing the extent of checkerboard landownership, thereby providing the BLM and the Tribe with more logical and consistent land management responsibility in the Monument. JF - EPA number: 140377, Draft EIS, December 29, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Animals (Animals) KW - Indian Reservations KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Mineral Resources KW - Recreation Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Conservation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Monument KW - California KW - Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 29, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, AUSTIN, TEXAS. AN - 16380946; 16354 AB - PURPOSE: The greater San Antonio area is positioned at the southeastern edge of the Edwards Plateau ecoregion in Texas. This ecoregion supports several federally threatened or endangered species that occupy a variety of habitats, including mature woodlands, early-growth shrublands, and subterranean caves. The natural resources of the Edwards Plateau have also been a significant attraction for human communities. Over the past 30 years, the human population in and around San Antonio increased by more than 75 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 1995, 2000, 2010). The economy of the San Antonio metropolitan area is expected to continue drawing people to the region, with a projected population increase of more than 60 percent over the next 30 years (ESRI Business Solutions 2009, Wendell Davis and Associates 2010a). As a result of these land development activities, habitats for federally threatened or endangered species are being impacted. The Service identifies habitat loss and degradation as the primary factors threatening the survival and recovery of many of these species. The Applicants need a long-term, comprehensive solution to allow otherwise lawful activities that could result in take of covered species while assuring compliance with the ESA. Therefore, the Applicants have requested an JF - EPA number: 140360, Draft EIS, December 19, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality KW - Land use KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Texas KW - Edwards Plateau KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16380946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 19, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE BOARDMAN TO HEMINGWAY TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, VALE, OREGON. AN - 16372656; 16362 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Land Use Plan Amendments document analyzes the impacts related to granting a right-of-way across federal land to Idaho Power Company for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project. The B2H Project would include a single-circuit alternating -current, 500-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line with ancillary facilities. The transmission line would be approximately 305 miles long, and would connect the Grassland Substation located near the city of Boardman, Morrow County, Oregon, to the existing Hemingway Substation near the city of Melba, Owyhee County, Idaho. The proposed B2H Project would include relocation of approximately 4.5 miles of existing 138-kV transmission line to a newly constructed double circuit 138/69-kV transmission line in the existing right-of-way near Weatherby, Oregon. The B2H Project is proposed to cross federal, state, and private lands in five counties in Oregon and one county in Idaho. The Draft EIS analyzes the Proposed Action, the JF - EPA number: 140368, Draft EIS, December 19, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Transmission Lines KW - Soils KW - Mineral Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Water Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Floodplains KW - Vegetation KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Fisheries KW - Visual Resources KW - Oregon KW - Idaho KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vale, Oregon N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 19, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEWEY-BURDOCK IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CUSTER AND FALL RIVER COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 1558059177; 16030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source and byproduct material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery (ISR) facility in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota is proposed. Powertech (USA), Inc. submitted a license application in August 2009 for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, which would be located in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, one of four specified in the final generic EIS of June 2009 for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. The 10,580-acre project site is located 13 miles north-northwest of the city of Edgemont, 40 miles west of the city of Hot Springs, and 50 miles southwest of the city of Custer. Approximately 10,340 acres of land is privately owned, and the remaining 240 acres of surface rights are public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The subsurface mineral rights are owned by various private entities and federally reserved by the U.S. Government. The Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would consist of processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields in two contiguous areas: the Burdock area and the Dewey area. Facilities would include: a central processing plant in the Burdock area and a satellite facility in the Dewey area; surface impoundments; wellfields and their associated infrastructure; Class V deep injection wells and/or land application areas for disposal of liquid gas wastes; and access roads. Extraction is proposed at 10 wellfields in the Burdock area and at four wellfields in the Dewey area. Injection wells would be used to introduce lixiviant into the uranium mineralization; production wells would be used to extract uranium-bearing solutions; and monitoring wells would be used to identify and assess impacts of ongoing operations and detect groundwater excursions. The Burdock central plant would fully process the uranium-bearing solution and uranium-loaded resin from the Dewey satellite facility. The recovered uranium would be processed, dried into yellowcake, packaged into 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. Powertech anticipates that production activities in the initial wellfields would commence two years after construction begins and wellfield operations would continue for eight years. Aquifer restoration would begin two years after production activities commence and would continue for nine years. After the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines the production area is restored, Powertech would implement a groundwater stability monitoring program for a minimum of 12 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative. The preliminary NRC staff recommendation is that a source and byproduct material license for the proposed action be issued as requested, unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR uranium recovery on public lands with mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All project phases would produce intermittent fugitive dust emissions. Construction would disturb 243 acres if deep well injection is used to dispose of treated wastewater, or 1,398 acres if land application or a combination of deep well injection and land application is used to dispose of treated wastewater. Habitat loss, displacement of wildlife, and mortality due to encounters with vehicles or heavy equipment would occur, though wildlife species would likely disperse from the area once construction commences. Archaeological and historic sites may be disturbed. Dewey Road would experience a sixteenfold increase in daily vehicle traffic during construction and a fivefold increase in daily vehicle traffic during operations. Local landfill capacity may be insufficient to accommodate all decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste. The project would contribute to visibility impacts at Wind Cave National Park, but the impact magnitude is expected to be minimal. JF - EPA number: 140034, Final EIS Volume I--641 pages, Volume II--669 pages, February 7, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Dakota KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1558059177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-02-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEWEY-BURDOCK+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+AND+FALL+RIVER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEWEY-BURDOCK+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+AND+FALL+RIVER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 7, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 16398071; 16018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a casino in Thompson, Sullivan County, New York is proposed by the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, band of the Mohican Indians of Wisconsin. The proposed Munsee Casino Project would constitute a destination facility with a Class III gaming complex as well as such ancillary facilities as a hotel, food and beverage outlets, retail facilities, and a service station. The proposed 333-acre site lies immediately adjacent to State Route 17, a major transportation corridor, and regionally is within 100 miles of few York City. For the project to be implemented, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs must first take lands into trust for the tribe. The tribe, which largely resides on its Wisconsin Reservation, which provides residences for 800 of the tribe's 1,600 members. The reservation is the site of the Mohican North star Casino and Bingo complex, which features 1,045 slot machines and 18 Black Jack tables. The tribe continues to maintain strong ties with the state of New York, particularly in relation to cultural and historical sites and reparation issues. In 1986, the tribe filed an ejectment claim with respect to 23,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the state and other interested parties; the tribe had occupied these lands prior to migrating to Wisconsin. Under the proposal, the first phase would involve development of a 584,000-square-foot casino and ancillary facilities. The casino space would provide for 3,000 slot machines and 190 gaming tables as well as a wide range of other entertainment facilities, such as specialty bars and restaurants, retail shops, child care areas, a 30,000-square-foot multi-purpose area, and employee accommodations. Warehousing and other storage space would be provided in a separate building. A service station and convenience store would be located at the entrance. A water tower would be located at a high point near the entrance, and a 40,0000 square-foot central plant would be located next to the casino. During the first phase, 8,480 parking spaces would be provided in two surface lots and structured parking facilities. The project would include roadway improvements and water supply and waste treatment facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The second phase would consist of the construction of a 750-room hotel and a parking garage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino operation would be of a size that maximizes revenues, constitutes competition for other existing and proposed establishments, and creates a draw for potential patrons. Gaming would provide a dependable revenue stream, maximize net revenues, and thereby protects tribal members financial and allows the tribe to fulfill its responsibilities under its governmental and social programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development site would extend into the 100-year floodplain and result in the displacement of upland forest habitat. Phase I would impact 1.48 acres of vegetated wetlands, 0.07 acre within a pond, and 0.37 acre within two drainage basins as well as 705 intermittent streams. The resort complex would all 2,264 peak-hour vehicular trips to the area roadway system at full build out. The project population would create additional demand for community services and consume 430,000 gallons of water for domestic uses per day. The average daily wastewater outflow would amount to 327,000 gallons, which could easily be accommodated by the Thompson Kaimesha wastewater treatment facility. JF - EPA number: 140022, Final EIS Volume I--339 pages, Volume II--2,247 pages, January 31, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Commercial Zones KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits 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/16398071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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 Indian Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 31, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRUCELLOSIS REMOTE VACCINATION PROGRAM FOR BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 16379638; 16011 AB - PURPOSE: The remote delivery of vaccine for the contagious disease brucellosis to free-ranging bison in Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. The analysis area encompasses 220,000 acres in the central and northern portions of the park that were historically occupied by bison. The Yellowstone bison population has substantially increased since the initiation of restoration efforts in 1902 and numbered more than 5,000 in 2005. To reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle more than 900 bison were consigned to slaughter during winter 2005-06, and more than 1,400 were consigned to slaughter during winter 2007-08. Brucellosis is caused by the non-native bacteria Brucella abortus that may induce abortions or the birth of non-viable calves in livestock and wildlife. Remote delivery is distinguished from hand (syringe) delivery that currently occurs in capture pens near the park boundary because it would not involve capture and handling of bison. The proposed action is directed by a 2000 Record of Decision for the Interagency Bison Management Plan regarding the release of bison outside the park that are untested for exposure to brucellosis. The remote delivery vaccination is intended to protect Yellowstone bison by reducing brucellosis infection and, as a result, further reduce the risk of transmission to cattle outside the park. Three alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative would continue the current hand vaccination program that is intermittently implemented at the Stephens Creek capture facility during capture operations. The second alternative would include a combination of the capture program at Stephens Creek and a remote delivery vaccination strategy that would focus exclusively on young, non-pregnant bison. The most logical strategy for remote delivery of vaccine at this time is using a compressed air-powered rifle that delivers an absorbable bullet with a vaccine payload that is freeze dried or photo-polymerized. Remote delivery vaccination could occur from mid-September through November and March through May in areas where bison are distributed in the park. A third alternative includes all components of the second alternative, as well as the remote vaccination of adult females. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Remote delivery vaccination would deliver a low risk, effective vaccine to eligible bison inside the park to decrease the probability of bison shedding Brucella abortus, lower the brucellosis infection rate, and increase tolerance for bison on essential winter ranges in Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The effectiveness of Strain RB51 vaccine against field strain Brucella abortus is not conclusive and mixed results have been reported by various research projects. The duration of immunity provided by remote vaccination remains uncertain. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally-listed Canada lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. JF - EPA number: 140015, Final EIS--287 pages, January 24, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Management KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RENEWAL OF THE CHOCOLATE MOUNTAIN AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE LAND WITHDRAWAL, IMPERIAL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16378531; 16013 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of the military land withdrawal and reservation of 228,465 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) in Imperial and Riverside counties, California is proposed. The Department of the Navy (DoN) is responsible for administering an additional 229,903 acres within the range. The CMAGR is a live-fire training range used for developing and maintaining the readiness of Marine Corps and Naval Aviation forces and Marine Corps and Navy land combat forces. While the CMAGR supports training by units from all branches of the military, the Marine Corps is the primary user of this range. The majority of aircraft that are used in training originate from squadrons based at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona and MCAS Miramar, California. Other squadrons that regularly use the CMAGR are stationed in California, at MCAS Camp Pendleton and Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, and in Arizona, at Luke Air Force Base. Aircraft that originate from other Marine and Naval air stations and Air Force bases or that are launched from aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean are also frequently flown in training missions at the CMAGR. In total, roughly 100 squadrons from throughout the nation collectively fly more than 6,000 training sorties annually at the CMAGR. Five alternatives are considered in this final legislative EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM land within the CMAGR boundary would be withdrawn and reserved for 20 years and the boundary would remain unchanged. Under Alternative 2, the BLM land would be withdrawn and reserved for 25 years and the boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. Alternative 3 would involve authorization of the CMAGR without expiration and the adjustment of the boundary to incorporate the full Bradshaw Trail and Niland-Blythe Road realignments. Under Alternative 4, the BLM land would be withdrawn and reserved for 25 years and the boundary and withdrawal area would be changed to incorporate the partial Bradshaw Trail realignment. Management responsibility for BLM land within the renewed CMAGR would transfer to the DoN under alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 5) would result in the expiration of the current withdrawal of BLM land in the CMAGR at the end of October 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The renewal would preserve military training capabilities, capacities, and operations at the CMAGR. Alternatives 2 and 3 would release 647 acres of DoN land and 1,924 acres of BLM land that are not needed for either current or future military purposes. Realignments would improve the demarcation of the range boundary. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land added to the CMAGR by realigning the boundary with the UPRR could contain fringe dune habitat and DoN-exclusive management of CMAGR could reduce management focus on BLM sensitive species and rare plants. However, protection for federally threatened and endangered species such as the desert tortoise would continue. Under the No Action Alternative, the remaining DoN land would not provide an adequate restricted land-base to continue tactical aviation training. JF - EPA number: 140017, Final EIS--121 pages, January 24, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Desert Land KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Air Force) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Vegetation KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Sikes Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RENEWAL+OF+THE+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAIN+AERIAL+GUNNERY+RANGE+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+IMPERIAL+AND+RIVERSIDE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RENEWAL+OF+THE+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAIN+AERIAL+GUNNERY+RANGE+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+IMPERIAL+AND+RIVERSIDE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY LAND IN THE EAST EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLORIDA. AN - 16396035; 16006 AB - PURPOSE: Acquisition of land owned by the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) in the East Everglades Expansion Area (EEEA) within the boundary of Everglades National Park to allow for higher water levels in the area to facilitate ecosystem restoration efforts within the park is proposed. The FPL parcel is a linear north-south corridor of between 330 feet and 370 feet in width and approximately 7.4 miles in length within the park. The parcel was purchased by FPL in the 1960s and early 1970s, prior to the expansion of the park, with the intention of supporting future transmission lines from the Turkey Point Power Plant, located south of the Biscayne National Park visitor center, to locations north of metropolitan Miami. A total of six alternatives and four transmission line scenarios are examined in this draft EIS. Under alternative 1a, the NPS would not take action to acquire FPL property within the park or a flowage easement. This alternative assumes that FPL would not construct transmission lines on its existing land in the park, in the exchange corridor, or in any area outside the park. Under alternative 1B, the NPS would not take action to acquire FPL, but assumes that FPL would construct transmission lines on its existing land in the park. Under alternative 2, the FPL property (7.4-mile-long FPL corridor containing 320 acres of FPL lands) would be acquired directly by purchase or through the exercise of eminent domain authority by the US. The construction scenario associated with alternative 2 assumes that FPL would likely acquire a replacement corridor east of the existing park boundary to meet its transmission needs because the NPS alternative selected would leave FPL without a transmission corridor through the park. Under alternative 3, the NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL property through an exchange for park property, as authorized by the exchange legislation. NPS land conveyed to FPL would consist of 260 acres along 6.5 miles of the eastern boundary of the EEEA. This alternative would result in a 260-acre decrease in lands within the authorized boundary on the east side of the park, and an increase of 320 acres of federally owned land within the authorized boundary. The construction scenario associated with this alternative assumes that FPL would be able to secure all federal, state, and local permits necessary to construct transmission lines, associated fill pads, and access roads on lands FPL acquired by exchange. Under alternative 4, the NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL property through an exchange for an easement on NPS property. The NPS would grant an easement to FPL on 260 acres of park land along 6.5 miles of the eastern boundary of the EEEA for potential construction of transmission lines. The construction scenario associated with this alternative would be the same as the one for alternative 3, except that NPS would retain ownership of the FPL Utility Easement Area. Under alternative 5, the NPS would acquire a perpetual flowage easement on FPLs property within the EEEA through purchase, condemnation, or donation by FPL. The flowage easement would include the entire FPL property from Tamiami Trail to the 8.5-square-mile area, and the flowage allowed under this easement would allow sufficient water flow over this area to support ecosystem restoration projects. The construction scenario associated with this alternative would be the same as the one for alternative 1b, except that NPS would acquire a long-term, perpetual flowage easement that provides sufficient flowage for completion of Everglades restoration projects. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would increase the level of protection of the outstanding natural values of the park and enhance and restore the ecological values, natural hydrologic conditions, and public enjoyment of such areas. It would also assure that the park is managed in a way that maintains the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of native plants and animals, as well as a the behavior of native animals, as part of its ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The no action alternatives would include changes to hydrological patterns, changes in water quality, soil disturbance, and a permanent loss of 182 acres of soils (including 89 acres in the park), disturbance of wetlands and a permanent loss of approximately 179.1 wetlands acres, changes to soundscapes due to construction and corona noise, permanent loss of habitat for wildlife and special-status species, avian collisions with the transmission line and electrocutions, permanent changes to the visual landscape, and changes in visitor use. Land exchange and easement alternatives would include changes to hydrological patterns, changes in water quality, soil disturbance and a permanent loss of 181 acres of soil surface, disturbance to unique farmland soils outside of the park, permanent loss of 180.0 acres of wetlands, and permanent loss of habitat for wildlife and special-status species. JF - EPA number: 140010, Draft EIS Volume I--500 pages, Volume II--250 pages, Volume III--360 pages, January 17, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - National Parks KW - Land Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Soils KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Noise KW - Recreation KW - Wetlands KW - Floodplains KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wilderness Management KW - Hydrology KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16396035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-01-17&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, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 17, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, JIMBILNAN, PINTO VALLEY, BLACK CANYON, ELDORADO, IRETEBA PEAKS, NELLIS WASH, SPIRIT MOUNTAIN, AND BRIDGE CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1552588505; 16001 AB - PURPOSE: A wilderness management plan for eight wilderness areas within Lake Mead National Recreation Area that proposes changes in how these areas are managed is presented. Lake Mead National Recreation Area, located in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona, covers 1,495,664 acres, including two Bureau of Reclamation impoundments: Lake Mead and Lake Mohave. In both the national recreation area and adjacent BLM lands the scenery includes geologic landforms and largely undisturbed panoramic vistas. Rugged north-trending mountain ranges and broad alluvial slopes dominate the area. There are more than 1,200 identified archaeological sites above the water lines of Lakes mead and Mohave. This draft EIS presents three alternatives for management of the eight wilderness areas. Under Alternative A, the No Action alternative, the National Park Service would continue to provide minimal management of the eight wilderness areas as has been the case since the wilderness areas were established in 2002. Alternative B is the National Park Services and Bureau of Land Managements preferred alternative. In this alternative, the emphasis would be on preserving wilderness character while providing a few more opportunities for visitors to access some of the wilderness areas as compared to alternative A. In this alternative, the Black Canyon Wilderness would receive additional NPS attention because it is close to Boulder City and receives relatively high OHV use and other inappropriate uses, resulting in wilderness values being lost. More proactive management also would be given to the Pinto Valley, Spirit Mountain, and Bridge Canyon wilderness areas to ensure their values are protected and unacceptable impacts do not occur. In alternative C, the emphasis would be on continuing to preserve wilderness resources while providing additional opportunities for visitors to access several of the wilderness area, particularly in the Pinto Valley and Spirit Mountain wilderness areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new wilderness management plan would address issues related to backcountry, which was not specified in the 1986 Lake Mead National Recreation Area general management plan. The plan would also address the population increase in Clark County, which would affect in visitation patterns. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all of the alternatives there would be the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, natural soundscape, ethnographic resources, and visitor use and experience. These unavoidable impacts would be negligible to minor in extent and would be primarily due to continuing or increasing visitor use in a few popular, localized areas (e.g., Boy Scout Canyon, Spirit Mountain). The translocation of desert tortoise on BLM lands, including possibly the Spirit Mountain, Ireteba Peaks, and Eldorado wilderness areas, could result in short-term, adverse impacts on the untrammeled quality of wilderness character, by introducing human manipulation into the ecosystem, but also would beneficially affect the natural quality of wilderness character. The construction and use of the four-lane Boulder City Bypass highway near the Black Canyon Wilderness also may cause visual and noise impacts in the wilderness area. JF - EPA number: 130005, Draft EIS--380 pages, January 17, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - National Parks KW - Wilderness KW - Lakes KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Noise KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Vegetation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Nevada KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1552588505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2014-01-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JIMBILNAN%2C+PINTO+VALLEY%2C+BLACK+CANYON%2C+ELDORADO%2C+IRETEBA+PEAKS%2C+NELLIS+WASH%2C+SPIRIT+MOUNTAIN%2C+AND+BRIDGE+CANYON+WILDERNESS+AREAS%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JIMBILNAN%2C+PINTO+VALLEY%2C+BLACK+CANYON%2C+ELDORADO%2C+IRETEBA+PEAKS%2C+NELLIS+WASH%2C+SPIRIT+MOUNTAIN%2C+AND+BRIDGE+CANYON+WILDERNESS+AREAS%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 17, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GARFIELD, KANE, SAN JUAN, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16370698; 15993 AB - PURPOSE: A proposal analyzing a range of alternatives and action for managing off-road use of motor vehicles and on-road use of off-highway vehicles and street-legal all-terrain vehicles at Glen Canyon National Recreation in Utah is presented. Glen Canyon encompasses 1,254,306 acres in northern Arizona and southeastern Utah. The use of motorized vehicles to reach off-road destinations in Glen Canyon predates the establishment of the recreation area in 1972. Following a rapid increase in visitation to Glen Canyon during the 1970s, NPS determined that site-specific planning for off-road use was warranted. Increasing use at shoreline locations was leading to management concerns, including visitor conflicts, safety issues, resource degradation, and unsystematic off-road use. Four action alternatives and one no-action alternative were developed for this draft EIS. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, represents the continuation of existing management policies and actions related to the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in Glen Canyon and represents no change from the current level of management direction and level of management intensity. Under Alternative B, the remote, undeveloped, and lightly traveled nature that characterizes much of Glen Canyon would be maintained by limiting the operation of motor vehicles only to designated roads. Nearly 669,000 acres of Glen Canyon is classified as Natural under Glen Canyons management zones, where maintaining isolation and natural processes is the primary management objective. Under Alternative C, ORVs would be managed in a manner that would expand the recreational opportunities in Glen Canyon by increasing the number of ORV routes and areas. Alternative C is designed to enhance the visitor experience by identifying and designating specific areas capable of supporting off-road use and on-road off-highway vehicle (OPV) and street-legal all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use, while prohibiting such uses in areas where natural and cultural resources and visitor experience may be adversely impacted. Under Alternative D, the isolated and primitive characteristics of the Glen Canyon backcountry would be enhanced by limiting the areas open to off-road use and by prohibiting the operation of OHVs and street-legal ATVs throughout Glen Canyon. Alternative D would reduce the number of available ORV areas. Alternative E, the NPS preferred alternative, is designed to protect resources and enhance the visitor experience by identifying and designating specific areas capable of supporting off-road use while prohibiting uses in areas where resources and values may be at risk. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This proposal would: (1) manage authorized vehicle uses to provide safe and healthful opportunities for visitor access and recreation; (2) manage authorized vehicle uses to protect the biological and physical environmental, including natural processes and systems; (3) manage authorized vehicle uses to protect cultural resources; and (5) establish clear policies to guide authorized vehicles uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The NPS preferred alternative would have direct adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at Lone Rock Beach, Lone Rock Beach Play Area, and approximately 6,000 acres at 13 accessible shorelines as a result of disturbance, displacement, vehicle-wildlife collisions, noise, and habitat destruction. This alternative would also create direct impacts as a result of noise generated from conventional motor vehicles, OHVs, and street-legal ATVs total 373,135 acres of land (28.75% of the Glen Canyon land area). These areas could potentially experience a 3-dBA increase in natural ambient due to motorized vehicle operations. Direct adverse impacts on archeological resources could involve 3 not evaluated sites in Lone Rock Beach Play Area; 6 eligible sites and 2 not evaluated sites at accessible shorelines; and 6 eligible sites and 3 not evaluated sites in Ferry Swale. JF - EPA number: 130382, Draft EIS--538 pages, Appendices--192 pages, January 3, 2014 PY - 2014 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Erosion KW - Land Management KW - Roads KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Shores KW - Lakes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area KW - Utah KW - Arizona KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, National Park Service, Page, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 3, 2014 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-01 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Education 2013-2014 (Based on SY 2012-2013 Data) Special Education Indicator Performance AN - 1826526808; ED565280 AB - The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is responsible for approximately 41,051 American Indian and Alaska Native children at 183 elementary and secondary schools on 64 reservations in 23 states. The educational services the BIE provides is vital to current and future students who are their tribes' future. This report presents Special Education Indicator Performance data tables for 174 Bureau of Indian Education schools in tabular format. Indicators include: (1) Graduation Rate; (2) Dropouts; (3) Assessment Targets; (4) Assessment Targets--Reading; (5) Assessment Targets--Mathematics; (6) Suspensions and Expulsions--High School; (7) Suspensions and Expulsions--Elementary School; (8) LRE Placement; (9) Parental Involvement; (10) Child Find; (11) Secondary Transition; and (12) Post-School Outcome. Data also include target percentage, school results, and indicates with a yes or no answer if the target was met. [To access "Bureau of Indian Education 2012-2013 (Based on SY 2011-2012 Data) Special Education Indicator Performance" in ERIC, see ED554003.] Y1 - 2014 PY - 2014 DA - 2014 SP - 174 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Suspension KW - Special Education KW - Educational Indicators KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Academic Achievement KW - Disability Identification KW - Reservation American Indians KW - Dropouts KW - Outcomes of Education KW - Student Placement KW - Expulsion KW - Reading Achievement KW - Transitional Programs KW - Early Intervention KW - Parent Participation KW - American Indian Education KW - Graduation Rate KW - Alaska Natives UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1826526808?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Atlantic OCS proposed geological and geophysical activities; Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas; final programmatic environmental impact statement AN - 1618132597; 2014-086329 JF - OCS EIS/EA BOEM Y1 - 2014 PY - 2014 DA - 2014 EP - variously paginated PB - U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, [location varies] KW - United States KW - Northwest Atlantic KW - geophysical surveys KW - natural gas KW - impact statements KW - petroleum KW - Eastern U.S. KW - decision-making KW - production KW - mineral resources KW - environmental effects KW - biota KW - mitigation KW - natural resources KW - outer shelf KW - surveys KW - policy KW - ecology KW - continental shelf KW - ocean floors KW - North Atlantic KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1618132597?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_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 - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 67 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Volume I, text and illustrations; Volume II, appendix A; Volume II, appendices B-M; In 3 volumes N1 - Last updated - 2014-10-30 N1 - CODEN - #07641 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Ocean; biota; continental shelf; decision-making; Eastern U.S.; ecology; environmental effects; geophysical surveys; impact statements; mineral resources; mitigation; natural gas; natural resources; North Atlantic; Northwest Atlantic; ocean floors; outer shelf; petroleum; policy; production; surveys; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TECKLA-OSAGE-RAPID CITY 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, MYSTIC RANGER DISTRICT, BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST, CAMPBELL AND WESTON COUNTIES, WYOMING AND PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 1551324571; 15988 AB - PURPOSE: A proposal by Black Hills Power (BHP) to construct and operate a 230 kV transmission line from northeastern Wyoming to the Rapid City are in South Dakota is presented. The transmission line route proposed by BHP would connect the Teckla Substation in Campbell County, Wyoming to the Osage Substation in Weston County, Wyoming and the Lange Substation located in Pennington County near Rapid City, South Dakota. The route would be approximately 144 miles long and would cross private lands, National Forest System (NFS) lands, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands (in Wyoming), and state lands (in Wyoming). Two action alternatives and one no action alternative were considered in detail for this proposal. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, assumes that no implementation of any elements of the Proposed Action (no authorization of ROWs and no construction of the transmission line) would occur in the Project area within the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative2, the Proposed Action, is a single-circuit 230 kV transmission line that begins at the existing Teckla substation, approximately 67 miles north of Douglas, Wyoming in Campbell County and travels west approximately three miles along an existing transmission line route, then north approximately 19 miles. The proposed route for the transmission line would use approximately 47 miles of a currently unused transmission line ROW, reducing the amount of tree clearing and associated disturbance required for construction. This cleared ROW once accommodated a BHP 69 kV transmission line that has been removed and BHP maintains rights to the easement / ROW. Where the proposed route would be located within the existing unused transmission ROW, the ROW would be expanded and cleared to a 100-foot width from the existing 40-50 feet to accommodate the new higher voltage line. Alternative 3 is defined as the Proposed Action with modifications to the proposed route in specific locations to respond to issues identified during scoping. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Installation and operation of the 230kV transmission line would: (1) strengthen the regional transmission network; (2) improve the reliability of the transmission system; and (3) provide additional transmission capacity to help meet the growing demand for electricity and development in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Proposed Action would result in the removal of approximately 563 acres of trees within the project area that would not be replaced. In addition, soils would be permanently disturbed at each transmission line pole. There would be a temporary loss of resources from removal of approximately 1,294 acres of vegetation. There would be temporary impacts to soils including soil compaction from the traffic of construction equipment; the removal of a portion of the existing topsoil resource from excavation for structure installation and blading for road construction; and erosion from disturbed soils that have not be stabilized. Most of the soils that would disturbed have a high restoration potential and mitigation measures would be implemented to revegetate these areas. JF - EPA number: 130377, Draft EIS--711 pages, December 27, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - South Dakota KW - Black Hills National Forest KW - Thunder Basin National Grasslands KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1551324571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-12-27&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 Agriculture, Forest Service, Rapid City, South Dakota; DA N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WYOMING GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. AN - 1551324569; 15987 AB - PURPOSE: Amendments to six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and three Forest Service land use plans to address management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in Wyoming are proposed. In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as warranted but precluded (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in land use plans was identified as a major threat in the USFWS findings on the petition to list the Greater Sage-Grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In response to the USFWS findings and pending listing decision, the BLM and Forest Service have prepared the Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments to analyze the addition of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures to the existing Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the Wyoming BLM Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices and the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) Planning Units. This draft EIS describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on approximately 16 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System Lands and approximately 23 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate. Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service land use plans, as amended. Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT planning effort in IM-2012-044. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. In areas where the disturbance cap has been met by the project proponent, the BLM/Forest Service should consider opportunities for reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features that are no longer in use in order to reduce the current disturbance before further projects are permitted. This alternative considers incorporating a light grazing strategy, utilizing a 20-30% forage allocation for livestock allotments not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat. Alternative C is based on the citizen groups recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and is applied to all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. This alternative considers closing priority sage-grouse habitat to livestock grazing. Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat based on scoping comments and input from the Cooperating Agencies involved in the alternatives development process. This alternative increases the potential for development and resource use, with reduced Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protections. Protective measure would be applied to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse core habitat. Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative, incorporates the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governors Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. This alternative emphasizes management of sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). This guidance is consistent with guidelines provided in the Governors Sage-Grouse Implementation Teams Core Population Area strategy and the WY EO 2011-05. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 5% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse core habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Conservation measures and changes in habitat management are anticipated to have a considerable impact on greater sage-grouse populations and could prevent the species from being listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Other terrestrial wildlife associated with greater sage-grouse habitat would also benefit. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing to allow surface disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Although these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage is inevitable. Development of the additional oil and gas wells would cause air quality related impacts. Under all alternatives, production and release into the atmosphere of HAPs, VOCs, CO, SO2, NOx, and PM10 would increase. Inadvertent damage and/or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources from increased surface-disturbing activities would be unavoidable. Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to protect sage-grouse habitat and other sensitive resources would impact the ability of operators, individuals, and groups to use the public lands without limitations and result in forgone opportunities to use resources within the planning area. JF - EPA number: 130376, Draft EIS, Appendices, Maps, December 27, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-14/006+1110 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Air Quality KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest KW - Medicine Bow National Forest KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland 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/1551324569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WYOMING+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=WYOMING+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-08-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONUMENT BUTTE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 1547826713; 15985 AB - PURPOSE: Newfield Exploration Companys proposal to expand its ongoing oil and natural gas development within and in the vicinity of the Greater Monument Butte Unit (GMBU) is presented. The Monument Butte Project Area (MBPA) is located in southeastern Duchesne County and southwestern Uintah County. The MBPA consists of approximately 119,743 acres located in Township 4 South, Range 1 East; Township 4 South, Range 1-3 West; Township 5 South, Range 1 and 2 East; Township 5 South, Range 3 West; Township 8 South, Range 15-19 East; Township 9 South, Range 15-19 East; and Township 10 South, Range 15-18 East. Surface ownership in the MBPA is approximately 87 percent federal (managed by the BLM), approximately 11 percent State of Utah (managed by State Institutional Trust Lands Administration [SITLA]), and approximately two percent private. Mineral interests are owned by the BLM (89 percent), the State of Utah (10 percent), and private interests (less than one percent). Lands with separate surface and mineral ownership, also known as split estate lands, comprise approximately 18 percent of land within the MBPA. This draft EIS evaluates four alternatives; the Proposed Action (Alternative A), No Action Alternative (Alternative B), Field-wide Electrification Alternative (Alternative C), and the Resource Protection Alternative (Alternative D). It is notable that the proposed surface locations for well pads, pipeline corridors, utility corridors, access roads, and other surface facilities under each alternative are conceptual at this point. These locations have been illustrated on the alternative-specific maps for analytical and impact evaluation purposes only in this EIS. Actual locations for well pads, access roads, ROWs, and other surface facilities would be determined at the Project implementation phase. Alternative A, the Proposed Action, is derived from Newfields proposed plan for oil and gas development. Under this alternative, Newfield proposes to drill associated wells at an average rate of 360 wells per year until the resource base is fully developed. Under this drilling scenario, construction, drilling, and completion of up to 5,750 wells would occur for approximately 16 years. Under the Alternative B, the No Action Alternative, the proposed oil and gas infill development project on public land surface and/or federal mineral estates as described in the Proposed Action would not be implemented. However, proposed oil well development would likely continue on state and private lands or minerals within the MBPA. Alternative C was developed in response to air quality issues raised during the public and agency scoping process. The principal component of this alternative entails a phased field-wide electrification system that would be integrated in the MBPA over an estimated 7-year period. This alternative would incorporate the same construction and operational components as Alternative A, except that gas-driven motors would be converted to electric motors as field electrification is phased into the MBPA. Alternative D, the Resource Protection Alternative, is the Agency Preferred Alternative. For the MBPA, the primary objective of the Resource Protection Alternative is to meet the purpose and need for the project while minimizing impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats and threatened and endangered species by (1) avoiding new surface disturbance within the Pariette Wetlands Area of Environmental Concern; (2) minimizing the amount of new surface within USFWS proposed Level 1 and 2 Core Conservation Areas (for two federally-listed plant species: the Uinta Basin hookless cactus and the Pariette cactus; (3) precluding surface disturbance within 100-year floodplain and riparian habitats; and (4) adjusting new development based on existing well density in other portions of the MBPA through the use of directional drilling technology. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Newfield to develop valid lease rights to produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas. Newfield estimates that its plan could yield over 334.9 million barrels of oil, 540,669 cubic feet of natural gas, and 10,085 million barrels of natural gas liquids from the Green River formation, and 6.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the deep gas development through 2035. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pollutant emissions have the potential to affect air quality on both a local and a regional scale. Potential impacts to geologic and mineral resources from the Proposed Action include changes to local physiography and topography; decreased slope stability; depletion of oil and natural gas resources; and interference with potential mining of Gilsonite, tar sands, oil shale, and other leasable, locatable, and salable minerals within the MBPA. Direct impacts on paleontological resources would include the potential destruction of paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. All of the alternatives would impact soil resources within the MBPA through surface disturbance associated with road building, pipeline and ancillary facility construction, well drilling, and well-pad development. Impacts to range resources are anticipated under each of the alternatives as a result of construction and operational activities. Under all alternatives, adverse effects to historic properties in the MBPA would include an increased risk of physical alteration, damage, or destruction, and/or alteration of the character or setting of a property. JF - EPA number: 130374, Draft EIS--657 pages, Appendices--1,019 pages, December 20, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-G010-2009-0217-EIS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Natural Gas KW - Wetlands KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Oil Production KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Utah KW - Green River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1547826713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN, ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SAN JOAQUIN, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1547255982; 15976 AB - PURPOSE: The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a comprehensive conservation strategy for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to advance the planning goal of restoring ecological functions of the Delta and improving water supply reliability in the state of California, is proposed. The Delta has long been an important resource for California, providing municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses; fish and wildlife habitat; and water supply for large portions of the state. However, by several key criteria, the Delta is now widely perceived to be in crisis. There is an urgent need to improve the conditions for threatened and endangered fish species within the Delta. Improvements to the water supply conveyance system are needed to respond to increased demands upon and risks to the aquatic ecosystem, water supply reliability, and water quality. This draft ETIS evaluates 15 action alternatives and a no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, the federal incidental take permits related to the proposed BDCP would not be issued and permit applicants would remain subject to the take prohibition for listed species and other Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. The Preferred Alternative is Alternative 4. Under this action alternative, water would primarily be conveyed from the north Delta to the south Delta through pipelines/tunnels. Water would be diverted from the Sacramento River between Clarksburg and Courtland. Water would travel in gravity collector pipelines from the intakes to a sedimentation basin before reaching the intake pumping plants. From the plants water would be pumped into short segments of conveyance pipelines and then through an initial single-bore tunnel, which would lead to an intermediate forebay on Glannvale Tract. From the southern end of this forebay, water would pass through an outlet structure into a dual-bore tunnel where it would flow by gravity to the south Delta. Water would then be conveyed through a siphon under Italian Slough, and then into the north cell of the expanded Clifton Court Forebay, which would be dredged and redesigned to provide an isolating water flowing from the new north Delta facilities. The expanded Clifton Court Forebay would be designed to provide water to Jones pumping plant 24 hours per day. The remaining action alternatives are: (1) Alternative 1A-Dual Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel and Intakes 1-5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario A); (2) Alternative 1B-Dual Conveyance with East Alignment and Intakes 1-5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario A); (3) Alternative 1C-Dual Conveyance with West Alignment and Intakes W1-W5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario A); (4) Alternative 2A-Dual Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel and Five Intakes (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario B); (5) Alternative 2B-Dual Conveyance with East Alignment and Five Intakes (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario B); (6) Alternative 2C-Dual Conveyance with West Alignment and Intakes W1-W5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario B); (7) Alternative 3-Duel Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel and Intakes 1 and 2 (6,000 cfs; Operational Scenario A); (8) Alternative 5-Dual Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel and Intake 1 (3,000 cfs; Operational Scenario C; (9) Alternative 6A-Isolated Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel and Intakes 1-5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario D); (10) Alternative 6B-Isolate Conveyance with East Alignment and Intakes 1-5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario D); (11) Alternative 6C-Isolated Conveyance with West Alignment and Intakes W1-W5 (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario D); (12) Alternative 7-Dual Conveyance with Pipeline/Tunnel, Intakes 2, 3, and 5, and Enhanced Aquatic Conservation (9,000 cfs; Operational Scenario E); (13) Alternative 8-Dual Conveyance with Pipelline/Tunnel, Intakes 2, 3, and 5, and Increased Delta Outflow (9,000 cfs; Operational Scenario F); and (14) Alternative 9-Through Delta/Separate Corridors (15,000 cfs; Operational Scenario G). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide new and/or modified state water conveyance facilities as well as conservation through the protection, restoration, and enhancement of habitats for native fish, wildlife, and plants within the Delta. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary negative impacts from construction-related debris, noise, and soil movement could occur but would be countered with mitigation measures. The temporary construction footprint of the three intakes would occupy about 16.21 acres of in-13 water habitat, while the total permanent in-water footprint would be approximately 12.3 acres (9.5 14 acres smaller under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 1A). Alternative 4 would result in the near-term loss or conversion of approximately 2,309 acres of tidal 27 perennial aquatic natural community due to construction of the water conveyance facilities (CM1) 28 and fish passage improvements (CM2), and inundation during tidal marsh restoration (CM4). JF - EPA number: 130365, Draft EIS and Appendices, December 13, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Water Supply KW - Water Quality KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals KW - Fish KW - Pipelines KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Rivers KW - Bays KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1547255982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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 Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Sacramento, California; DC N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-22 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AND PHASE III EARLY RESTORATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT), ALABAMA, FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND TEXAS. AN - 1547255981; 15974 AB - PURPOSE: This draft programmatic EIS considers programmatic alternatives to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The April 20, 2010 explosion and sinking of the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon is the largest oil spill in US history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas was also released to the environmental as a result of the spill. The scope, nature and magnitude of the Spill was unprecedented, causing impacts to coastal and oceanic ecosystems ranging from the deep ocean floor, through the oceanic water column, to the highly productive coastal habitats of the northern Gulf of Mexico, including estuaries, shorelines and coastal marsh. Affected resources include ecologically, recreationally, and commercially important species and their habitats in the Gulf and along the coastal areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. A set of project types for inclusion in programmatic alternatives, consistent with the desire to seek a diverse set of projects providing benefits to a broad array of potentially injured resources was developed. Ultimately, this process results in the inclusion of 12 project types in the programmatic alternatives evaluated for Early Restoration, including: (1) create and improve wetlands; (2) protect shorelines and reduce erosion; (3) restore barrier islands and beaches; (4) restore and protect submerged aquatic vegetation; (5) conserve habitat; (6) restore oysters; (7) restore and protect finfish and shellfish; (8) restore and protect birds; (9) restore and protect sea turtles; (10) enhance public access to natural resources for recreational use; (11) enhance recreational experiences; and (12) promote environmental and cultural stewardship, education and outreach. While the 12 project types can be combined in numerous ways to develop programmatic alternatives, the following four programming alternatives were considered: (1) no action; (2) contribute to restoring habitats and living coastal and marine resources (project types 1-9); (3) contribute to providing and enhancing recreation opportunities (project types 10-12); and (4) contribute to restoring habitats, living coastal and marine resources, and recreational opportunities (project types 1-12). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The development and evaluation of Early Restoration projects for the potential use of the remaining funds available for Early Restoration would be examined. A range of Early Restoration alternatives and project types would be developed that could be applied at this time and in future phases of Early Restoration planning. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of equipment in submerged substrates to excavate material for wetland creation can disturb sediments. This adverse effect would be minor and short-term because actions would be localized and generally would not extend beyond the construction period. Some short-term minor adverse effects could occur if resources, including oysters, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, benthic communities, and pelagic microfaunal communities are present in the construction area. Possible impacts could include increased turbidity, reduction of water quality, noise pollution, and disruption to the water column and habitat. Equipment usage and boating traffic in construction areas could pose a minor short-term adverse effect by increasing the risk of water quality contamination during the construction period. JF - EPA number: 130363, Executive Summary--14 pages, Draft EIS--2,487 pages, December 13, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Oil Spills KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Drilling KW - Marine Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Fish KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Environmental Justice KW - Wetlands KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Recreation Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Natural Gas KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Florida KW - Alabama KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1547255981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEEPWATER+HORIZON+OIL+SPILL+NATURAL+RESOURCE+DAMAGE+ASSESSMENT+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+AND+PHASE+III+EARLY+RESTORATION+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+AND+TEXAS.&rft.title=DEEPWATER+HORIZON+OIL+SPILL+NATURAL+RESOURCE+DAMAGE+ASSESSMENT+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+AND+PHASE+III+EARLY+RESTORATION+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+AND+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-22 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Analysis of Parent Survey Data Addressing Part B SPP/APR Indicator #8--2013 AN - 1697503565; ED554213 AB - In accordance with federal reporting requirements mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) must report annually on 20 performance indicators related to the provision of special education services to children ages 3-21. This 2013 report presents findings of a survey conducted by the BIE to address Indicator #8, the "percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities." The report includes the appendices: (1) Response Frequencies by Item; (2) WINSTEPS Control File; and (3) Selected WINSTEPS Output. AU - Penfield, Randall D. Y1 - 2013/12// PY - 2013 DA - December 2013 SP - 55 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Preschool Education KW - Early Childhood Education KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Item Response Theory KW - Special Education KW - Educational Legislation KW - Parent Surveys KW - Race KW - Psychometrics KW - Federal Legislation KW - Rating Scales KW - Disabilities KW - Parent Participation KW - American Indian Education UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697503565?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Paleoseismic investigations of subduction zone earthquakes on the southeastern coast of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska AN - 1686059210; 2015-050599 AB - Rupture extents for prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes on the Alaska margin are poorly documented. For example, the 1964 great Alaska earthquake ruptured the subduction zone from Prince William Sound westward to the southwest end of Kodiak Island, but an outstanding question is whether or not earlier subduction earthquakes ruptured a shorter segment in the Kodiak region with the eastern margin located in the Kenai Peninsula. To address the question, we investigated several embayments on the Pacific (southeastern) coast of the Kenai Peninsula to reconstruct the late Holocene paleoseismic history. Constraints to constructing a paleoseismic history on the outer Kenai coast include recent deglaciation of embayments that limits a stratigraphic record to approximately the last 1 to 3 thousand years and the high wave-energy environment that results in frequent closure of embayments by barrier bars. Recognizing these constraints, two approaches have proved productive in investigating paleoseismic history on the outer Kenai coast. One involves understanding how beach ridges can be formed and modified by coseismic subsidence and documenting timing and number of late Holocene prehistoric earthquakes based on beach ridge genesis and evolution. The other approach, which is the more conventional paleoseismic approach for subduction zones, is investigating stratigraphic evidence for coseismic subsidence in peaty and muddy sediment within embayments. We illustrate these two approaches using two coastal sites in Aialik Bay within Kenai Fjords National Park, a strandplain complex at Verdant Cove and a drowned embayment at Quicksand Cove, respectively. Both sites record two prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes prior to the historically known 1964 great Alaska earthquake. JF - American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting AU - Kelsey, H M AU - Witter, R C AU - Briggs, R W AU - Engelhart, S E AU - Nelson (USgS), A R AU - Haeussler, P J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2013/12// PY - 2013 DA - December 2013 SP - Abstract EP13A EP - 0818 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 2013 KW - 18:Solid-earth geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059210?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%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.atitle=Paleoseismic+investigations+of+subduction+zone+earthquakes+on+the+southeastern+coast+of+the+Kenai+Peninsula%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Kelsey%2C+H+M%3BWitter%2C+R+C%3BBriggs%2C+R+W%3BEngelhart%2C+S+E%3BNelson+%28USgS%29%2C+A+R%3BHaeussler%2C+P+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kelsey&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=2013&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Geophysical+Union+Fall+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2013 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - CODEN - #07548 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SODA MOUNTAIN SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16392436; 15964 AB - PURPOSE: Soda Mountain Solar LLC proposed to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the Soda Mountain Solar Project (SMSP). The Project is an approximately 358-megawatt (MW) photovoltaine (PV) solar energy generating facility and related infrastructure. If approved, the Project would be constructed on BLM-administered land in unincorporated San Bernardino County, California. The Project would generate and deliver solar-generated power to the California electrical grid through and interconnection to the Market Place-Adelanto 500 kV transmission line owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and power. This draft EIS analyzes seven alternatives: (1) an amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW authorization for a 358-megawatt (MW) solar energy plant and related facilities within an approximately 4,179-acre area of BLM-administered public land in San Bernardino County, California, and the Countys approval of the requested groundwater well permit (Alternative A); (2) an amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW authorization to develop 264 MW on approximately 1,647 acres of public land within the proposed east and south arrays, and County groundwater well permit approval (Alternative B); (3) an amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW authorization to develop 298 MW on approximately 1,823 acres of public land within the proposed north and south arrays, and County groundwater well permit approval (Alternative C); (4) an amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW authorization to develop 250 MW on approximately 1,717 acres of public land in a configuration that would maintain Rasor Road in its existing location as on Open Route for off-highway vehicle use, and County groundwater well permit approval (Alternative D); (5)a CDCA Plan amendment would not be processed and the requested ROW grant would be denied, and the County would deny the groundwater well permit (Alternative E); (6) an amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW to develop any of the action alternatives, and County denial of the requested groundwater well permit (Alternative F); and (7) no issuance of a ROW Grant, no County permit approval, and a CDCA Plan Amendment identifying the requested ROW area as unsuitable for solar development (Alternative G). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Project would: (1) create an economically viable source of clean renewable electricity generation; (2) provide power to help Californias utilities meet the growing demand for electric power; (3) provide renewable energy that assists California utilities in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets; and (3) provide a source of renewable energy that fulfills many federal energy policies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residual short-term construction impacts on air resources would result from construction of the Proposed Action or an action alternative. The Proposed Action would cause impacts to vegetation resources, eliminating the Mojave creosote bush scrub vegetation community within the Project site. The Project also would directly and indirectly affect ephemeral dry washes comprising up to 498.68 acres of unvegetated ephemeral dry washes that are regulated as State-jurisdictional ephemeral drainages. The Proposed Action or any of the action alternatives would eliminate all habitat for wildlife within the Project site and would potentially affect wildlife movement and use of adjacent off-site habitat. The Proposed Action would impact five archaeological sites and 52 isolated artifacts, none of which are eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register. JF - EPA number: 130353, Draft EIS--760 pages, Appendices--1,185 pages, November 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/PL-2014/002+1793 KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Electric Power KW - Electric Generators KW - Desert Land KW - Wells KW - Roads KW - Water Resources KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEVADA (ADOPTION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONS DRAFT EIS OF JUNE 2013). AN - 16378451; 15966 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an extra-high voltage direct current (DC) transmission system extending from south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada is proposed. TransWest Express LLC has submitted applications for right-of-way grants and special use permits to use portions of the National System of Public Lands and also has entered into a pre-development agreement with the Western Area Power Administration to potentially obtain financing for the TransWest Express (TWE) Transmission Project. The proposed transmission line would cross Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. The analysis area includes portions of five national forests, 14 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices, 24 counties, and 56 communities. Over 60 percent of the analysis area is federally managed land. The proposed action would consist of an approximately 725-mile-long, 600-kilovolt (kV), DC transmission line and two terminals, each containing a converter station that converts alternating current (AC) to DC or vice-versa. The northern AC/DC converter station would be located near Sinclair, Wyoming, and the southern near the Marketplace Hub in the Eldorado Valley, approximately 25 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada. The project would retain an option for a future interconnection with the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) transmission system in Millard County, Utah. This draft EIS analyzes the applicant-proposed route, a No Action Alternative, and two to five alternative routes in each of four regions. An agency-preferred alternative (APA) is identified based the following primary criteria: 1) maximize the use of designated utility corridors; 2) minimize requirements to amend resource plans; 3) avoid and minimize resource impacts regulated by law; 4) avoid and minimize proximity to private residences and residential areas; 5) avoid and minimize resource impacts to reduce the magnitude and duration of adverse (residual) impacts; 6) minimize the use of private lands; and 7) minimize transmission system construction, operation and maintenance expense. In region I (Southern Wyoming, Northwestern Colorado), the APA transmission line route would extend approximately 170 miles from the vicinity of Sinclair, Carbon County, Wyoming, to the vicinity of U.S. Highway 40 southwest of Maybell in western Moffat County, Colorado. In region II (Northwestern Colorado, Eastern Utah, Central Utah), the APA transmission line route would extend approximately 270 miles from the vicinity of the eastern Utah border near Vernal to the vicinity of the IPP near Delta, Millard County, Utah. In region III (Central Utah, Southwest Utah, Southern Nevada), the APA transmission line route would extend approximately 285 miles from the vicinity of the IPP, Millard County, Utah, to the vicinity of Apex on Interstate 15, northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. In region IV (Southern Nevada), the APA transmission line route would extend approximately 40 miles from Apex on Interstate 15 to the Marketplace Hub in the Eldorado Valley, southeast of Las Vegas. Resource plans for the BLM Rawlins, Little Snake, Vernal, Salt Lake, and Las Vegas Field Offices would require amendment in order to implement the APA identified in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TWE project would provide the transmission infrastructure and capacity to deliver approximately 3,000 megawatts of electric power from renewable and other energy sources in south-central Wyoming to a substation hub in southern Nevada. The project would transmit power for over 1.8 million households annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts to soils would be temporary and no alterations to existing drainage patterns or increases of off-site erosion are expected. Long-term losses of prime farmland could occur if structure foundations or facilities are required in prime farmlands. The trampling/crushing of vegetation, removal of vegetation, and soil compaction could impact numerous sensitive plant species. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and mortality would impact big game, small game, special status wildlife species, and aquatic species. Federally listed species in the project area include: black-footed ferret, grey wolf, Mexican spotted owl, Canada lynx, Utah prairie dog, desert tortoise, California condor, Yuma clapper rail, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congressionally designated areas that would be impacted by one or more of the alternatives include national wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, national conservation areas, national historic trails, and other similar management areas. Ground-disturbing activities could impact historic properties, including properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native American Tribes. Operations would result in permanent visual impacts to areas along the transmission line, including areas used for dispersed recreation. JF - EPA number: 130355, Draft EIS--782 pages, Appendices--1,549 pages, November 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding 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/16378451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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 Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1541984652; 15962 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. JF - EPA number: 130351, Final EIS--951 pages, Appendices--5,149 pages, November 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1541984652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OREGON SUB-REGION GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. AN - 16391170; 15951 AB - PURPOSE: An amended resource management plan (RMP) in response to the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered for the Oregon sub-region is presented. This draft EIS provides future management direction to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on which populations depend. The planning area contains 12,618,026 acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 2,639,000 acres of BLM-administered mineral split-estate beneath private surface lands that are also in the planning area. A No Action alternative and five Action alternatives were considered. Alternative A, the No Action alternative, continues current management direction and prevailing conditions derived from the existing RMP. The BLM used GRSG conservation measures in the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team report to form management direction under Alternative B. The key distinction about Alternative B is that conservation measures under the alternative are focused on PPMA (areas that have the highest conservation value to maintain or increase GRSG populations). They are also focused on Great Basin-wide concerns for GRSG. Alternative C focuses on recommendations made from individuals and conservation groups during the scoping process. Conservation measures in Alternative C are focused on a passive restoration approach. Alternative C provides minimal guidance for resources, other than livestock grazing. Alternative D is the Oregon BLM Alternative and incorporates input from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the USFWS. Alternative Ds primary objective is to maintain or enhance GRSG habitat to establish a mix of sagebrush classes so as to provide a sustainable habitat for GRSG. Alternative E is based on the plan laid out in Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (State Plan), which is intended to promote effective management of GRSG and intact functioning sagebrush communities in Oregon. The primary goal of Alternative E is restore, maintain and enhance populations of GRSG such that multiple uses of population objectives shall be identified based on the best information available. Alternative F reflects recommendations from individuals and conservation groups made during the scoping period. A noteworthy different between Alternatives C and F is that Alternative F provides greater restrictions on allowable uses and less resource management flexibility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP amendment would identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in RMPs to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A number of noxious weed control, vegetation restoration, conifer removal, and fuels treatment projects are ongoing and would reduce GRSG habitat in the short term. Under any alternative, despite BLM, state, and local actions, overall trends toward habitat loss are likely to continue in the small and isolated Baker population due to wildfire, disease, and predation in GRSG habitat. JF - EPA number: 130339, Draft EIS Volume--394 pages, Volume II--460 pages, Volume III--266 pages, Maps--47 pages, November 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-14/004+1792 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Oregon KW - Washington 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/16391170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OREGON+SUB-REGION+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=OREGON+SUB-REGION+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 2011). AN - 16374130; 15955 AB - PURPOSE: A supplement draft to the 2011 draft EIS/general management plan for Biscayne National Park in Miami-Dade County, Florida is presented. Biscayne National Park is a marine park consisting of mostly submerged land and includes coral reefs, sandy shoals, 4,825 acres of largely undeveloped mangrove shoreline, and 42 keys or islands primarily composed of limestone and coral. Since the last comprehensive planning effort was completed in 1983, the population near the 173,000-acre park has greatly increased and visitor use patterns, types, and recreational interests have also changed. Based on the comments received from the draft EIS, the National Park Service developed two new alternatives (alternatives 6 and 7) in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. In alternative 6 (the new agency preferred alternative), the special recreation zone would include the following activities and limitations: fishing would be allowed year-round, with a special permit required for access to fish recreationally. There would be some zone-specific fishing restrictions (e.g., no grouper or lobster harvest, no spearfishing), but in general all other state fishing regulations would apply. There would be no commercial fishing allowed in the special recreation zone, with exception of the existing ballyhoo lampara net fishery. Anchoring within the zone would be prohibited; however, additional mooring buoys would be added over time as needed to disperse visitor use and improve the safety of diving operations. Snorkeling and diving would be allowed, and marine debris would be removed throughout the zone to improve the overall visitor experience for these activities. Alternative 7 is similar to alternative 6 in that it includes a special recreation zone with many of the same zone-specific fishing limitations. Differing from alternative 6, alternative 7 would not require an access permit to fish in the zone, but the area would be closed to recreational fishing during the summer months (June through September). This period is when the coral reef ecosystem is most stressed by warm water conditions and fish would benefit greatly from a respite in fishing pressure. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would actively participate in the implementation of alternative 6, including permitting, research, monitoring, or rulemaking, but would not for alternative 7. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national park for the next 20 years or more. Designated zones for slow speed and noncombustion engine use would help to separate conflicting visitor uses, increase boating safety, increase nonmotorized opportunities, and increase opportunities for solitude. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed development under the preferred alternative could impact American crocodiles, sea turtles, and Schaus swallowtail butterfly. Additional speed and boat engine restrictions would exclude some visitors from designated areas. JF - EPA number: 130343, Draft Supplemental EIS--284 pages, November 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Corals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway KW - Atlantic Coast KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2010). AN - 1539442800; 15953 AB - PURPOSE: The cumulative impact of the Ruby Pipeline Project to sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is evaluated. The Ruby Pipeline Project is a 678-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline beginning near Opal, Wyoming, running through northern Utah and northern Nevada, and terminating near Malin, Oregon. The project crosses about 368 miles of federal land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is undertaking this revised cumulative effects analysis in response to a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ruby Pipeline Project was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on April 5, 2010 and the Right-of-Way Grant and Plan of Development were approved by a BLM Record of Decision on July 12, 2010. This final supplemental EIS contains additional information about the original and present condition of the sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat, and evaluates the impact of the Ruby Pipeline Project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past actions that have been attributed to sagebrush steppe disturbance generally are: conversion to cropland and other development (including mining and energy projects); livestock grazing (cattle and sheep); the introduction of non-native plants (mainly cheatgrass); changes in wildfire cycles; and juniper-pinyon encroachment. Present and reasonably foreseeable future development that may cumulatively impact sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat include: hydroelectric projects, natural gas wells and pipelines, natural gas storage facilities, electric transmission lines, wind farm facilities (turbines and meteorological towers), geothermal wells, mining and mineral exploration, livestock grazing, and habitat restoration projects. This final supplemental EIS tiers to and incorporates by reference the information and analyses contained in the Ruby Pipeline Project final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The analysis provides quantified and detailed data about the cumulative loss of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat within the Ruby Pipeline project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Past actions have resulted in the loss of about 11.5 million acres (37 percent) of sagebrush steppe within the cumulative impact area based on sage-grouse distribution and habitat mapping. Nearly all sagebrush steppe has been degraded to some extent. The Ruby Pipeline Project and other energy and mining actions would continue a historic trend toward a reduction of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat. In total, these projects would affect an estimated 50,523 acres of sagebrush steppe, of which the Ruby Pipeline Project accounts for about 18 percent. In total, the Ruby Pipeline Project and other energy and mining actions would affect about 0.26 percent of the existing 19.3 million acres of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat in the cumulative impact area. While the cumulative effects of the projects are significant, these activities are overshadowed by losses to wildfire that occur every year. JF - EPA number: 130341, Final Supplemental EIS--147 pages, November 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-0000-2013-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Fires KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fremont-Winema National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Utah KW - Nevada KW - Oregon UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1539442800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2010%29.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PAN MINE PROJECT, EUREKA AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1535619355; 15947 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. Midway Gold US Inc. has submitted a plan of operations for the Pan Mine to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District, Egan Field Office. The project area is located in the Pancake Mountain Range, approximately 50 miles west of Ely and 22 miles southeast of Eureka. The proposed project would include: an open-pit gold mine with two larger pits and four smaller pits, as well as crushing facilities and stockpiles; two waste rock disposal areas; a heap leach pad and associated conveyors; processing facilities and ponds; water supply wells and a water delivery/storage system; and haul roads and access roads. Ancillary facilities would include: power supply; stormwater controls; reagent, fuel, and explosives storage; buildings including administration, laboratory, security, warehouse, core shed, and parking; potable water supply and septic systems; maintenance shop; ready line; light vehicle wash; communications facilities; helicopter pad; plant growth medium and woody debris stockpiles; landfill; area for petroleum contaminated soils; monitoring wells; borrow areas; fencing; and yards. The project also would include a 69-kilovolt transmission line on new BLM right-of-way extending from El Dorado junction at Strawberry Road and U.S. Highway 50, then east along U.S. Highway 50 to the mine access road, and south into the project area along the side of the mine access road. Upon completion of mining activities, the majority of the operation would be reclaimed. Three alternatives to the proposed action, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Southwest Power Line Alternative would address potential impacts to greater sage-grouse by routing the power line from the junction of Strawberry Road and U.S. Highway 50 heading west five miles and then parallel to State Route (SR) 379 south and southeast approximately 12 miles. At this point, the power line would head east away from SR 379 through Newark Valley and then north for 15 miles terminating on the west side of the mine site. Under the Waste Rock Disposal Site Design Alternative, a reconfigured waste rock disposal design would result in a decrease of 79 acres of disturbance compared to the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan approval with mitigation measures would allow development of the mine in a manner that would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and ensure future post-mining land use. The Pan Mine would provide long-term employment and income throughout the 48-year life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the mine would result in long-term minor to moderate air resource impacts and both short- and long-term, and negligible to minor impacts to surface water and groundwater resources. Vegetation would be removed across 3,204 acres reducing active grazing for the life of the mine, with the maximum potential impact being a temporary loss of 69 animal unit months. A permanent loss of 452 acres of rangeland would result from the unreclaimed North Pan Pit, South Pan Pit, the process pond, and stormwater control facilities. The permanent loss would be less than one percent of the allotment areas. Habitat for sand cholla would be removed as a result of the construction of the power line and main access road. Three greater sage-grouse leks could be affected. Impacts to cultural resource sites could include sites eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places (67 historic sites, one prehistoric site, and seven multi-component sites). Visibility of the project operations would contrast with the features of the existing landscape. JF - EPA number: 130335, Final EIS Volumes I and II, November 15, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES/13-6+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1535619355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT STUDY, VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16397943; 15939 AB - PURPOSE: A draft General Management Plan (GMP) to guide resource preservation and visitor experience at Channel Islands National Park over the next 20 to 40 years is presented. Located off the coast of southern California, the park encompasses eight of the Channel Islands and the submerged lands and waters within 1 nautical mile of each island. The park bridges two major biogeographical provinces within approximately 250,000 acres of land and sea, protecting a rich array of natural and cultural resources. A much larger area, approximately 1,426,173 acres of ocean, lies between the five islands. Giant kelp forests, seagrass beds, rocky reefs, and submarine canyons in the park are populated with more than 1,000 species of fish, invertebrates, and algae. The park provides essential nesting and feeding grounds for more than 90% of the sea birds in southern California. The park contains important paleontological and archaeological sites. Two action alternatives and one no-action alternatives were examined. Under Alternative1, the No Action Alternative, there would be no major change in the management direction of the islands. Alternative 2 emphasizes ecosystem preservation, restoration, and preservation of large expanses in relatively pristine resource conditions. Under Alternative 266,675 acres of the park would be proposed for wilderness designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. Minimal new development would occur on the islands; however, limited new facilities might be built on the islands for specific resource protection, research, management, or visitor services. Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, would place more attention than the other alternatives on expanding education and recreation opportunities and accommodations to provide diverse visitor experiences on the islands. Under Alternative 366,675 acres of the park would be proposed for wilderness designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. There would be expanded opportunities to bring the park to the people through additional facilities and activities, including an expanded visitor/education center in Ventura Harbor and expansion of learning programs and video telecasts. Although many roads might be removed or converted into trails on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands, selected roads would continue to be maintained for visitors to see Santa Rose Island and to administer and project resources on both islands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed GMP would restore and maintain natural ecosystems and process; preserve and protect cultural resources; provide opportunities and access for the public to experience and connect to the park; promote stewardship of park resources; and administer the park efficiently and effectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional visitors could result in minor to moderate adverse impacts on archaeological sites, historic structures, and ethnographic resources. Vegetation removal at Smugglers Cove would have a moderate adverse impact on the cultural landscape. There would be localized minor to moderate adverse noise impacts due to concentrations of visitors, boats, and park operations. JF - EPA number: 130327, Draft EIS--516 pages, November 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Oceans KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fish KW - Vegetation KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Channel Islands KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16397943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+AND+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+MANAGEMENT+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+AND+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATELINE SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16383703; 15936 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 300-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy generation facility on 2,143 acres in San Bernardino County, California, is proposed. Desert Stateline, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has filed an application for a right-of-way (ROW) authorization with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the Stateline Solar Farm Project. The proposed facility would be located on public lands near the California-Nevada border, two miles southwest of the community of Primm, Nevada, and 0.5 miles to the west of Interstate 15 (I-15). An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would be required to implement the proposed action. In addition to the photovoltaic generating facility, the project would include a 220-kilovolt generation interconnection (gen-tie) transmission line, operations and maintenance facilities, and a site access road. Seven alternatives are considered in this Final EIS: 1) amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW as proposed; 2) amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW for a modified project, developing 300 MW on a bifurcated 2,385 acre site; 3) amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a ROW for a modified project, developing 232 MW on a 2,151 acre site; 4) amendment of the CDCA Plan and grant of a TOW for a modified project, developing 232 MW on a 1,766 site; 5) No Action; 6) denial of the ROW application and amendment of the CDCA Plan to identify the project application area as suitable for any type off solar energy development; and 7) denial of the ROW application and amendment of the CDCA Plan to identify the project application area as unsuitable for any type of solar energy development. As part of the proposed action, Desert Stateline has submitted well construction permits to San Bernardino County for up to two groundwater production wells and three groundwater monitoring wells. The wells would be used to produce groundwater for dust suppression, fire response during construction, and for fire response and sanitary purposes during operations. This final EIS also evaluates the addition of the Northern Ivanpah Valley Unit to the existing Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA). The modified project on 2,151 acres (Alternative 3) is the BLMs preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The State Solar Farm Project would provide a clean, renewable source of electricity to help meet growing demand for power and help fulfill national and state renewable energy goals and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. Adjusting the boundaries of Ivanpah DWMA would improve BLMs management capability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related ground disturbance would probably be permanent, despite plans for restoration. Implementation of the preferred alternative would: remove 2,114 acres of Mojave creosote bush scrub and 28 acres of desert saltbush scrub; displace desert tortoise and other wildlife; and remove 2,151 acres of land from recreation opportunities and from the Clark Mountain grazing allotment. The proposed facility would be visible from locations within the Mojave National Preserve, Ivanpah DWMA, Clark Mountain area of critical environmental concern, Stateline Wilderness, and Mesquite Wilderness. JF - EPA number: 130324, Final EIS--928 pages, Appendices--218 pages, November 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/PL-2014-001+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATELINE+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATELINE+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, JUDITH BASIS, CHOUTEAU AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 16374026; 15934 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of approximately 345.560 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered surface and 639,927 acres of federal mineral estate in central Montana administered by the BLMs Lewistown Field Office (LFO). In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as Warranted but Precluded. The USFWS has identified conservation measures in resource management plans (RMPs) as the principal regulatory mechanism for protecting GRSG on BLM-administered lands. Through the land use planning process and plan amendment, the BLM will refine data to (1) delineate priority habitat (PH) and to analyze actions within PH areas to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) to identify general habitat (GH) areas and analyze actions within GH areas that provide for major life history function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival). Alternative A, the No Action alternative, continues current management direction and prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Alternative B uses GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) to form BLM management direction. Conservation measures under Alternative B are focused on PH (areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations). These conservation measures would include such protections as right-of-way exclusion. Alternative C reflects recommendations from individuals and conservation groups gathered during the scoping process. Conservation measures under Alternative C are focused on both PH and GH areas. Alternative D, the agency-preferred alternative, seeks to allocate limited resources among competing human interests and land uses and the conservation of natural resource values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP amendment would identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prioritizing fire suppression in PH and GH could result in increased fuel load and spread of noxious weeds, which lead to larger and more severe wildfires in the long term. Operation costs from mineral extraction could increase from application of conservation measures. The BLM would limit route construction to realignments of existing routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on GRSG habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for motorist safety. Under the preferred alternative, PH would be managed as an avoidance area for new applications for right-of-ways, leases, or permits, could impact local communities and economies. JF - EPA number: 130322, Draft EIS--718 pages, November 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-14-001 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Mineral Resources KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Montana KW - Lewis and Clark National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-06-09 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Education 2012-2013 (Based on SY 2011-2012 Data) Special Education Indicator Performance AN - 1697501585; ED554003 AB - This report presents Special Education Indicator Performance data tables for 173 Bureau of Indian Education schools. Indicators include: (1) Graduation Rate; (2) Dropouts; (3) Assessment Targets; (4) Assessment Targets--Reading; (5) Assessment Targets--Mathematics; (6) Suspensions and Expulsions--High School; (7) Suspensions and Expulsions--Elementary School; (8) LRE Placement; (9) Parental Involvement; (10) Child Find; (11) Secondary Transition; and (12) Post-School Outcome. Data include target percentage, school results, and if the target was met (yes or no). Y1 - 2013/11/07/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Nov 07 SP - 173 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - High Schools KW - Secondary Education KW - Elementary Education KW - Reading Tests KW - Suspension KW - Special Education KW - Educational Indicators KW - Dropout Rate KW - Referral KW - Benchmarking KW - Eligibility KW - Outcomes of Education KW - Student Placement KW - Expulsion KW - Transitional Programs KW - Parent Participation KW - Mathematics Tests KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Graduation Rate KW - Tables (Data) KW - Elementary Schools UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697501585?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION OF THE MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARAK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16396836; 15928 AB - PURPOSE: Comprehensive design alternatives for restoration natural conditions and protecting resources in the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias, and for improving visitor experience within the Grove and at the nearby South Entrance to Yosemite National Park, California are proposed. Mariposa Grove contains 86 percent of the parks mapped adult giant sequoias, and is estimated to receive 25 percent of the parks visitors during peak-use periods. In addition to providing important habitat for wildlife and plants, the Grove contains pre-Contact and historic-era archaeological resources, several historic properties, and American Indian traditional cultural resources. Existing facilities are affecting the health of the Grove and transportation issues are affecting visitor experience and accessibility. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Principal actions under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2, South Entrance Hub) would include removal of most of the public parking from Mariposa Grove; relocation of visitor parking and information services to a new transit hub at the parks South Entrance, with free shuttle service to and from the Grove; removal of the in-Grove gift shop and commercial tram staging area, elimination of tram service, limited restoration of wetlands and giant sequoia habitat in the lower portion of the Grove; improvements to soundscapes; and roadway and drainage improvements on Mariposa Grove Road at the entrance of the Grove (which could include a bridge or box culvert). A pedestrian trail would be established between the South Entrance and Mariposa Grove and if continuing congestion warrants it, a new roundabout would be constructed at the intersection of Wawona Road and Mariposa Grove Road at the South Entrance. Alternative 3 would relocate parking and visitor information services to a more centralized location in proximity to the Grizzly Giant, but out the extent of giant sequoia habitat. Tram operations would be eliminated within the Grove and a new road would be constructed around the lower Grove are to the new Grizzly Giant visitor parking area. The existing T-intersection would be retained at the South Entrance. Alternative 4 is generally similar to Alternative 2, but the commercial tram staging area would be moved to the South Entrance, and tram operations would continue in the Mariposa Grove with a reduced route and reduced hours of operation. The loop road in the upper portion of the Grove would be converted into a pedestrian trail. A modified T-intersection would be constructed at the South Entrance to improve traffic flow. Each of the action alternatives would incorporate: road, trail, and drainage improvements to restore more natural hydrologic flows; project-specific prescribed fire and fuel reduction treatments; soil decompaction; and improvements to visitor orientation and interpretation. Utilities and visitor facilities would be repaired, renovated, or replaced. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore degraded habitat and natural processes critical to the long-term health of the Mariposa Grove, and improve the overall experience for visitors. Reduced use of the Mariposa Grove would have beneficial impacts on the populations of special-status species, such as the Pacific fisher, California spotted owl and pallid bat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related impacts under Alternative 2 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect special status species. Adverse effects on historic structures, features, and cultural landscapes are archaeology are likely under Alternative 2, primarily due to proposed road alignment shifts, conversion of some roadway to trail, and narrowing of historic roads within the Mariposa Grove Historic District. JF - EPA number: 130316, Executive Summary--24 pages, Final EIS--306 pages, Appendices--158 pages, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16396836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEVADA AND NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, NEVADA , CALIFORNIA AND OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16395906; 15923 AB - PURPOSE: This draft land use plan amendment and EIS describes and analyzes six alternatives for managing approximately 17.7 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-and U.S. Forest Service-administered lands in Nevada and Northeast California. Federal lands in the planning are managed by five Nevada BLM district office (Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca), three California BLM field offices (Alturas, Eagle Lakes, and Surprise), two Idaho BLM field offices (Jarbidge and Bruneau) via an MOU, and one national forest (Humboldt-Toiyabe). The sub-regional planning area spans portions of 16 Nevada counties, four California counties, and one Idaho County (Owyhee). Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative); use of public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM and Forest Service land use plans, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D is the agencies preferred alternative and describes management actions developed by adapting the National Technical Team measures to the Nevada and Northeaster California sub-region. Alternative E is based on the State of Nevadas Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse and would apply to lands within Nevada only. Alternative F describes management action submitted by individuals and conservation groups. While Alternative D is the agencies preferred alternative, it is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencies preliminary preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM and Forest Service goals and policies, meet the purpose and need, address the key planning issues, and consider the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM and Forest Service specialists. The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for the Nevada and Northeast California sub-region. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in land use plans to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Major planning issues include threats to the area, including wildland fire management, livestock grazing, vegetation management, and lands and reality actions. JF - EPA number: 130311, Draft EIS, Executive Summary, and Appendices, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EIS.13-20+1973 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Idaho KW - Humboldt-Toiyabe 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/16395906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEVADA+AND+NORTHEASTERN+CALIFORNIA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+NEVADA+%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=NEVADA+AND+NORTHEASTERN+CALIFORNIA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+NEVADA+%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IDAHO AND SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, MONTANA, IDAHO, AND UTAH. AN - 16383485; 15924 AB - PURPOSE: This Land Use Planning Amendment (LUPA)/EIS addresses Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat within Idaho, southwestern Montana, and the Sawtooth National Forest within Utah. The planning area for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG LUPA/EIS is composed of land administered by the BLM, the Forest Service, state and federal agencies, as well as private lands. The BLM and Forest Service have developed five action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E and F) and one no active alternative (Alternative A). The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) represents the continuation of current management direction in the 21 BLM and 9 Forest Service approved LUPs. Under Alternative A, goals and objectives for BLM and Forest Service-administered lands and mineral estate would not change. Alternative B reflects the National Technical Teams A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Conservation measures under Alternative B are focused on preliminary priority management areas (PPMAs, areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations) and on Great Basin-wide concerns for GRSG. Alternative B would focus on restrictions on resource uses and protection for and enhancement of existing sagebrush habitat. BLM and Forest Service would apply a three percent surface disturbance cap to anthropogenic disturbances in PPMAs. Alternative C reflects management direction recommendations from individuals and conservation groups submitted during the scoping period for this LUPA/EIS. Management under Alternative C would focus on complete removal of livestock grazing from all occupied sage-grouse habitat on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands to conserve an enhance GRSG habitat. Alternative D is the Idaho/southwestern Montana sub-regional alternative. This alternative incorporates local adjustments to A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures and habitat boundaries. Under Alternative D, habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar to Alternative B, Though would additional measures to prioritize vegetation rehabilitation incorporate design features that would improve the success of rehabilitation projects, and strategically plan for wildfire suppression. Alternative E is the Idaho Governors Alternative and was developed from recommendations from the State of Idahos GRSG Task Force. Alternative E focuses primarily on management for the threats of wildfire, invasive species, and large infrastructure projects, and secondarily on management for the threats of improper livestock grazing management and related infrastructure, West Nile Virus, and recreation. It recommends the use of an adaptive management approach and implementation of triggers or thresholds that adjust zone criteria. There would be a 5 percent disturbance cap associated with fluid mineral development under Alternative E. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative F was derived from individual and conservation group scoping comments. This alternative contains a mixture of management actions from the NTTs report as well as additional restrictions on resource uses and increased resource protection. Alternative F includes a three percent surface disturbance cap, including fire, in PPMAs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LUPA will help identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in LUPs to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the LUPA along the theme of the action alternatives would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts on any resources. Conversely, proposed restrictions on some activities, such as OHV use, energy development, and livestock grazing intended to protect sensitive resources and resource values, would result in unavoidable adverse impacts on some users, operators, and permittees, by limiting their ability to use BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands and potentially increasing their operating costs. JF - EPA number: 130312, Executive Summary--114 pages, Draft EIS--870 pages, Appendices--850 pages, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Idaho KW - Utah KW - Sawtooth 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/16383485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UTAH GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 16383453; 15922 AB - PURPOSE: This proposal is the result of the March 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage Grouse (GRSG) as Threatened or Endangered. Based on the USFWS 12-month finding, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service are preparing several EISs with associated plan amendments that will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire range of the GRSG. For this land use plan amendment (LUPA)/EIS, the planning area includes all lands in the state of Utah, minus Washington and San Juan counties and portions of the Sawtooth National Forest located in Box Elder County Utah. The decision are includes all GRSG mapped occupied habitat within the planning area for which the BLM and Forest Service have authority to make management decisions. The BLM and Forest Service developed the following five action alternatives: (1) Alternative A (No Action) would leave existing LUPs unaltered, causing GRSG habitat to continue to be managed under current management direction; (2) Alternative B would close areas identified as PPMAs (Priority and General Management Areas) to new leasing and mineral materials disposal, and these areas would be recommended for withdrawal of mineral entry and exclusion for new rights-of-way. Grazing would continue to occur in GRSG habitat under Alternative B; (3) Under Alternative C, PPMAs would be closed to new leasing, closed to mineral materials disposal, recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, and exclusion for new rights-of-way. Under Alternative C, either all GRSG habitat currently available for livestock grazing either would become unavailable or would be reduce the permitted animal unit months and change the season of use so that no grazing occurs during the growing season in GRSG habitat; (4) Alternative D is the Utah Sub-regions alternative. Under Alternative D, PPMAs would be open to most land uses, but well-defined stipulations would be applied to authorization and actions. On the whole, land use restrictions would be more stringent within 4 miles of occupied GRSG leks; and (5) Alternative E is based on the State of Utahs Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah. Under Alternative E, 82 percent of the total mapped occupied habitat in the planning area 100 percent of the mapped occupied habitat in priority areas for conservation and 97.1 percent of the birds would be in SGMAs or core areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land use plan amendment would identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in land use plans to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to the that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable damage to cultural resources from permitted activities could occur if resources undetected during surveys were identified during surface-disturbing activities. Recreation, development of mineral resources, and general use of the decision area would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which would increase the probability of wildland fire and the need for its suppression. JF - EPA number: 130310, Draft EIS, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 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/16383453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR INTEGRATED DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16378312; 15920 AB - PURPOSE: This integrated Dredged Material Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DMMP/EIS) evaluates the return of the sand lost from Shackleford Banks due to maintenance of the navigation channel, to the beaches of Shackleford Banks, which is part of the Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). Approximately 1 million cubic yards of dredged material are removed from the Morehead City Harbor annually. Current maintenance disposal practices, without modification, result in the need for new or expanded disposal sites or modified disposal options, including beneficial uses, by 2028. The proposed DMMP (base plan) provides virtually unlimited disposal capacity for the Morehead City Harbor navigation project by recommending the following: continued use of Brandt Island without expansion, disposal of coarse-grained material on the beaches of Fort Macon State Park, Atlantic Beach, and Shackleford Banks, expansion of the Nearshore West placement area, a new Nearshore East placement area and continued use of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated ODMDS. Implementation of the DMMP is estimated to cost approximately $11,900,000 annually. The general navigation features (maintenance dredging) of the Project are 100% federally funded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the DMMP would increase the effectiveness of navigation operation and create a 20-year plan for disposal of dredged material from Morehead City Harbor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed DMMP would create temporary displacement of fish and other biota in the expanded Nearshore West and Nearshore East placement areas. The DMMP would also cause short-term closure of beach areas on Bogue and Shackleford Banks during beach disposal operations. JF - EPA number: 130308, Draft EIS--339 pages, Appendices--342 pages, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Dredging KW - Channels KW - Waste disposal KW - Navigation KW - Sand KW - Coastal Zones KW - Beaches KW - Wildlife KW - Oceans KW - North Carolina KW - Cape Lookout National Seashore KW - Clean Water Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOREHEAD+CITY+HARBOR+INTEGRATED+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOREHEAD+CITY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MOREHEAD+CITY+HARBOR+INTEGRATED+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOREHEAD+CITY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GAS HILLS IN-SITU RECOVERY URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT AND NATRONA COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 1528873205; 15919 AB - PURPOSE: Power Resources Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Holdings Inc. proposes to extract uranium from existing mining claims within the 8,500-acre Gas Hills Project Area (GHPA) located in eastern Fremont and western Natrona Counties, Wyoming. Camecos proposed Gas Hills In-Situ Recovery Uranium Project (Project) would use in-situ recovery methods to remove uranium from the subsurface through chemical dissolution using a series of wells similar to water wells. The Project would be located within the Gas Hills Mining District, an area of historic mining dating back to the early 1950s, and would include the following phases: (1) infrastructure development; (2) mine unit construction; (3) mine unit operation; (4) aquifer restoration; and (5) final Project reclamation and decommissioning. Five mine units, constructed in sequence, are proposed for the Project, and would disturb approximately 1,315 acres during construction, 633 of which would remain disturbed during mine unit operation. After completion of uranium production all Project facilities would be decommissioned and all surface disturbance would be reclaimed by the end of the estimated 25-year life of the Project. Four action alternatives were analyzed in detail in this Final EIS. They are: (1) the No Action Alternative, (2) the Proposed Action Alternative, (3) the Resource Protection Alternative, and (4) the BLM-Preferred Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not approve Camecos Project and none of the proposed uranium mining or associated activities would occur within the GHPA. Cameco would be responsible for the removal and reclamation of the existing Carol Shop facility and a portion of the existing roads within the GHPA. The Resource Protection Alternative would consist of Camecos proposed Project with modifications to reduce the environmental impact of the Project. The BLM-Preferred Alternative includes modifications of Camecos proposal with several additional elements derived from the Resource Protection Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would require an estimated maximum construction disturbance up to 1,315 acres, or approximately 15 percent of the GHPA. BLM anticipates a reduction of the area and intensity of impact through implementation of the additional measures listed for the Preferred Alternative. The surface disturbance during operations is estimated to be 633 acres, or approximately 7 percent of the GHPA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extraction of up to an estimated 2.5 million pounds of uranium oxide concentrate per year would allow Cameco to process and provide uranium-based products used for fuel in nuclear power facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 783 to 1,315 acres would affect soils, vegetation, and special-status plant species. Mining would impact eight to 15 acres of wetlands and 733 to 1206 acres of wildlife habitat, including 260 to 422 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat. The ISR process would impact groundwater quality and quantity during mine operation. The potential for exposure of important fossil resources would be high, especially in the White River Formation. The proposed action would displace 1,141 acres of available forage within grazing allotments over the life of the project. Nine sites which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places could be directly affected. JF - EPA number: 130307, Executive Summary--12 pages, Final EIS--426 pages, Appendices--218 pages, November 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/033+1330 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Disposal KW - Historic Sites KW - Mining KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1528873205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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, Lander Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2014-2016, WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 238, 246, AND 248, TEXAS AND LOUISIANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF 2012). AN - 16379419; 15905 AB - PURPOSE: This Supplemental EIS addresses three proposed federal actions that offer for lease an area on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. Under the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, five proposed lease sales are scheduled for the Western Planning Area (WPA). The remaining three proposed lease sales are proposed WPA Lease Sales 238, 246, and 248, which are tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. The potential impacts of a WPA proposed action on sensitive coastal environments, offshore, marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore are analyzed. Three alternatives were included for analysis in this supplemental EIS. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area for oil and gas operations, excepting the whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The proposed WPA lease sale are encompasses about 28.58 million acres. As of September 2013, approximately 20.8 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of natural resources projected to be developed as a result of a proposed WPA lease sale is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area as described for Alternative A, but ti would exclude from leasing any unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimate amount of resources projected to be developed is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas. Alternative C is the cancellation of a proposed WPA lease sale. If this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from a proposed WPA lease sale would be precluded during the current 2012-2017 Five-Year Program, but it could again be contemplated as part of a future Five-Year Program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sales would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. Lease stipulations would reduce or eliminate environmental risks and/or potential multiple-use conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations could affect soft bottom benthic communities through infrastructure emplacement, turbidity, sedimentation, drilling effluent discharges, and produced-water discharges. These localized impacts generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms. Potential impacts to Sargassum are expected to have only minor effects. Impacts to wetlands are expected to be low because of the small length of onshore pipelines projected, the forecast for no new onshore facilities expected, and the minimal contribution to the need for maintenance dredging. Pipeline trenching and OCS discharge of drilling muds and produced water could affect fish resources or essential fish habitat, but any impacts are expected to be insignificant. Adverse impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, and avian species could occur, but are not expected to be significant. The oil spills most likely to result from a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. JF - EPA number: 130304, Draft Supplemental EIS--744 pages, October 25, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013-203 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2014-2016%2C+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%2C+TEXAS+AND+LOUISIANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2012%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2014-2016%2C+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%2C+TEXAS+AND+LOUISIANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+OF+2012%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, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 25, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUMP CREEK, SUCCOR CREEK, AND COW CREEK WATERSHEDS GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL, OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16381406; 15894 AB - PURPOSE: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses options for future management of 25 livestock grazing allotments in northern Owyhee County, Idaho. These Owyhee Field Office Priority Group 2 allotments are of mixed ownership comprising of 80,720 acres of publicly owned land managed by the Owyhee Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 35,953 acres of privately owned land, and 8,589 acres of land managed by the State of Idaho, for a total of 125,262 acres in the EIS. Six alternatives are considered and analyzed in this EIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action/Current Conditions alternative for all 25 allotments. Alternative 2, the Permittee Applications alternative, applies to 24 allotments, which includes combining Alkali-Wildcat and Rats Nest to form a new allotment (Wild Rat allotment. Alternative 3, the Deferred Grazing alternative, applies to 21 allotments and includes combining Alkali-Wildcat and Rats Nest and either a deferred grazing system or a rest-rotation system. Alternative 4, the Season-based alternative, applies to 14 allotments and includes combining Alkali-Wildcat and Rats Nest; this alternative excludes eight allotments and two of the FFR allotments with previously signed determinations where current livestock grazing is not the causal factor for the failure to meet the Standards. Alternative 5, the Sheep-to-Cattle Conversion alternative, applies to the Poison Creek allotment only and includes a conversion of domestic sheep AUMs to cattle AUMs. Alternative 6 is the No Grazing alternative and applies to all 25 allotments. The Preferred Alternative is the result of assigning management prescriptions in a way designed to meet the resource needs of each individual allotment. This preferred alternative, therefore, is a composite of the action alternatives that are analyzed in this Final EIS because no individual alternative analyzed is expected to provide the resource benefits for all 25 allotments that BLM was seeking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit renewal would provide for livestock grazing opportunities on public lands using existing infrastructure where such grazing is consistent with meeting management objectives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Livestock grazing would continue to alter riparian vegetation with potential impacts to the health and sustainability of fish and amphibian populations. Grazing would adversely affect special status plants, potentially increase the spread of noxious and invasive weeds, and compete with foraging and habitat of wild horses. In addition, sage-grouse and other sagebrush habitat-dependent species would be affected. The risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep is considerable in the analysis area, and the effects to bighorn sheep are potentially significant. JF - EPA number: 130293, Final EIS--357 pages, Appendices--630 pages, October 4, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-B030-2012-0014-EIS KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-10-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUMP+CREEK%2C+SUCCOR+CREEK%2C+AND+COW+CREEK+WATERSHEDS+GRAZING+PERMIT+RENEWAL%2C+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=JUMP+CREEK%2C+SUCCOR+CREEK%2C+AND+COW+CREEK+WATERSHEDS+GRAZING+PERMIT+RENEWAL%2C+OWYHEE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION OF NATIVE SPECIES IN HIGH ELEVATION AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS PLAN FOR THE SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1516708576; 15891 AB - PURPOSE: This proposal analyzes a range of management alternatives for the restoration and conservation of high elevation aquatic ecosystems within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI), California. Thus far, SEKI has restored or is in the process of restoring 26 lakes and ponds by eradicating nonnative fish using physical tools (e.g., gill nets and electrofishers). The current methodology of physically eradicating nonnative fish, although successful on a small scale, does not meet goals to restore and conserve aquatic ecosystems on the parks scale. This SEKI Restoration Plan therefore proposes to recover smaller relatively-simple habitats using physical tools and larger more-complex habitats (including whole basins) using alternative tools. Three action alternatives and the no action alternative were considered for this plan. Alternative A (the no-action alternative) describes current management of high elevation aquatic ecosystems in SEKI and provides a baseline for comparison against the action alternatives. Under Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative), a prescription (detailed plan of action) for restoration would be developed for each proposed restoration area based on the criteria for basin selection, pre-treatment surveys, habitat size, basin topography, wilderness values, visitor use and field crew safety. Based on current knowledge of the proposed fish eradication sites, physical treatment would be applied in 49 waterbodies and 14 miles of streams in 15 basins, and piscicide treatment would be applied in 38 waterbodies and 27 miles in streams of 11 basins. After all treatments are completed, self-sustaining nonnative trout populations would continue to exist in 462 waterbodies and hundreds of miles of stream. Alternative C would use physical treatment methods only to eradicate nonnative fish by gill netting, electrofishing, trapping, disturbing and/or covering redds, and blasting rock to create vertical fish barriers. Physical treatments would be applied in 49 waterbodies and 14 miles of streams contained in 15 basins. After all treatments are completed, self-sustaining nonnative trout populations would continue to exist in 500 waterbodies and hundreds of miles of stream. Alternative D emphasizes speed in recovering habitat because mountain yellow-legged frog populations are declining rapidly. To achieve this speed, only piscicide treatment would be used for nonnative fish eradication. Based on initial examination of maps, staff familiarity with the park, and discussions with scientists, piscicide treatment would be used for 87 waterbodies. After all treatments are completed, self-sustaining nonnative trout populations would continue to exist in 462 waterbodies and hundreds of miles of stream. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This project would restore clusters of waterbodies to their naturally fishless state in strategic locations across SEKI to create high elevation ecosystems having more favorable habitat conditions for the persistence of native species and ecosystem processes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) would result in short-term degradation of natural resources, some fish carcasses would not be returned to the waterbodies where they were captures, and it would result in long-term, minor adverse impacts to wilderness areas though the long-term use of in-stream fish barriers. JF - EPA number: 130290, Executive Summary, Volume 1--DEIS, Volume 2--Appendices, October 4, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Management KW - National Parks KW - Lakes KW - Streams KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Conservation KW - California KW - Sequoia National Park KW - Kings Canyon National Park KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance KW - California Environmental Quality Act of 1994, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1516708576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-10-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+OF+NATIVE+SPECIES+IN+HIGH+ELEVATION+AQUATIC+ECOSYSTEMS+PLAN+FOR+THE+SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+OF+NATIVE+SPECIES+IN+HIGH+ELEVATION+AQUATIC+ECOSYSTEMS+PLAN+FOR+THE+SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OCS OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2014 AND 2016, EASTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 225 AND 226, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA. AN - 1516708575; 15892 AB - PURPOSE: Two oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf located in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) of the Gulf of Mexico are proposed. Proposed EPA Lease Sales 225 and 226 are part of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five-year leasing program and are scheduled to be held in 2014 and 2016, respectively. This Final EIS tiers from three previous environmental impact statements. This proposal considers two alternatives. Alternative A, the preferred alternative, would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed EPA lease sale are for oil and gas operations. The proposed EPA lease sale area covers approximately 657,905 acres (ac) and includes those blocks previously included in the EPA Lease Sale 224 Area and a triangular-shaped area south of this area bordered by the Central Planning Area boundary on the west and the Military Mission Line on the east. The estimated amount of natural resources projected to be developed as a result of a proposed EPA lease sale is 0-0.071 billion barrels of oil and 0-0.162 trillion cubic feet of gas. Alternative B, the no action alternative, is the cancellation of a proposed EPA lease sale. Although for its NEPA analyses in other planning areas the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) typically analyzes alternatives that defer blocks based on the proximity or presence of biologically sensitive features or for other programmatic reasons, BOEM has determined that such alternatives are not reasonable in the EPA as there are no known blocks to exclude due to proximity to or presence of biologically sensitive features and due to the fact that the EPA proposed action area is such a small area for leasing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed sales would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. Lease stipulations would reduce or eliminate environmental risks and/or potential multiple-use conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations could affect soft bottom benthic communities, through infrastructure emplacement, turbidity, sedimentation, drilling effluent discharges, and produced-water discharges. These localized impacts generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms. Potential impacts to Sargassum are expected to have only minor effects. Impacts to wetlands are expected to be low because of the small length of onshore pipelines projected, the forecast for no new onshore facilities expected, and the minimal contribution to the need for maintenance dredging. Pipeline trenching and OCS discharge of drilling muds and produced water could affect fish resources or essential fish habitat, but any impacts are expected to be insignificant. Adverse impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, and avian species could occur, but are not expected to be significant. The oil spills most likely to result from a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. JF - EPA number: 130291, Volume I--710 pages, Volume II--508 pages, October 4, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analysis KW - Pipelines KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1516708575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-10-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OCS+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2014+AND+2016%2C+EASTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+225+AND+226%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OCS+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2014+AND+2016%2C+EASTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+225+AND+226%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF ELEMENTAL MERCURY (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2011). AN - 1516708571; 15893 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of up to 10,000 metric tons of elemental mercury generated within the United States is proposed. The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 prohibits the sale, distribution, or transfer of elemental mercury by federal agencies to other government agencies or private entities, effective October 14, 2008, as well as the export of elemental mercury from the U.S., effective January 1, 2013. Mercury and its compounds are toxic and mercury is a pollutant of environmental concern throughout the world. Potential sources of mercury that may require long-term storage include: four chlor-alkali plants expected to still be using mercury-cell technology beyond 2010; gold mining in the state of Nevada, which produces the majority of U.S. byproduct mercury, and to a lesser extent South Dakota; six companies that account for most of the secondary mercury waste reclamation and recycling; and, potentially, some or all of the 1,200 metric tons of mercury currently stored at the Department of Energy (DOE) Y12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. As of March 1, 2013, several waste management companies have notified DOE of their intent to accumulate and store excess mercury at permitted facilities in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. All of these companies have certified that they will ship the excess elemental mercury to a DOE-designated facility, when such a facility is operational and ready to accept the mercury. A final EIS released in January 2011 considered seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, near Andrews, Texas. This draft supplemental EIS evaluates three additional locations for a long-term mercury storage facility, all near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which is located approximately 26 miles southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico. DOE operates the WIPP for underground disposal of defense transuranic waste. The currently preferred alternative would designate storage in a combination of an existing facility and a new facility at Waste Control Specialists, LLC, a commercial entity that owns and operates a 1,338-acre site for the treatment, storage, and landfill disposal of various hazardous and radioactive wastes. The facility is located 31 miles west of Andrews, Texas and six miles east of Eunice, New Mexico. The site is surrounded by a 13,500-acre tract of land, is currently permitted for storage of hazardous waste, and is accessible by truck and rail. Storage facilities would include spill containment features and emergency response procedures, security and access control, fire suppression systems, ventilated storage areas, and reinforced concrete floors. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term storage facility would protect human health and the environment. A new facility at Waste Control Specialists, LLC would provide safe and secure storage of up to 10,000 metric tons of elemental mercury for at least 40 years as opposed to continued, dispersed storage by multiple private entities. Regular inspections would ensure that no containers are corroding or leaking. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some mercury vapors would result from repackaging of mercury in new containers, but a vacuum air exhaust and mercury vapor filter would maintain air emissions exhausted to the outside at negligible concentrations. Geologic hazards could have an adverse impact on mercury storage facilities, but building design would minimize the risk. Truck or rail accidents resulting in mercury spills could impact human health. JF - EPA number: 130292, 518 pages, October 4, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0423-S1 KW - Disposal KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Metallic Elements KW - Public Health KW - Safety KW - Storage KW - Toxicity KW - Texas KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - South Carolina KW - Washington KW - Mercury Export Ban of 2008, Compliance KW - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1516708571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-10-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+AND+STORAGE+OF+ELEMENTAL+MERCURY+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIROMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2011%29.&rft.title=LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+AND+STORAGE+OF+ELEMENTAL+MERCURY+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIROMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Germantown, Maryland; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2014-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH DAKOTA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, BOWMAN COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16395627; 15880 AB - PURPOSE: This draft EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of approximately 30,030 acres of federal surface and 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate in southwestern North Dakota administered by the Bureau of Land Managements (BLM) North Dakota Field Office (NDFO). Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of BLM-administered lands and resources would continue to be managed under the North Dakota resource management plan (RMP), as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the NTT measures to North Dakota. Alternative D is the BLMs current preferred alternative, and seeks to allocate limited resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural resource values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, wildlife and fish habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP amendments will identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed management actions are primarily planning-level decisions and typically would not result in direct on-the-ground changes. However, by planning for uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal mineral estate during the planning horizon for the North Dakota RMP, this impact analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes. Impacts for some resources or resources uses, such as livestock grazing and off-highway vehicle use, could be confined to the BLM-administered surface estate. Other impacts, such as energy and minerals and requirements to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse from such activity, could apply to all BLM-administered federal mineral estate. Some BLM management actions may affect only certain resources under certain alternatives. JF - EPA number: 130279, Draft EIS--626 pages, September 27, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-13/013 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Land Management KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vegetation KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Production KW - North Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16395627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+DAKOTA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+BOWMAN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+DAKOTA+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+BOWMAN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 3 BARS ECOSYSTEM AND LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16393676; 15881 AB - PURPOSE: This Draft EIS analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) proposed land restoration treatments on the approximately 749,810-acre 3 Bars ecosystem, located in central Eureka County, Nevada. The ecosystem is a shrub-steppe ecosystem with important resource values, ranging from habitat for a diversity of plants and animals, to providing traditional use areas for several Native American tribes. The 3 Bars ecosystem provides important habitat for greater sage-grouse, mule deer, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and numerous other fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds, and for wild horses. Although 3 Bars ecosystem health is in decline, the ecosystem has characteristics that suggest its health can be substantially improved through land restoration activities. The BLM evaluated three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Alternative A is the BLMs Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the BLM would treat about 127,000 acres during the life of the project using manual and mechanical methods, fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit), and biological control (use of livestock and classic biological control [nematodes, fungi, mites, and insects] primarily to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation). Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the BLM would not use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, and the BLM would treat only about 63,500 acres. Under Alternative C, the BLM would only treat vegetation within treatment areas using manual methods and classical biological control; use of livestock for biological control would not be allowed. The BLM would also not be able to use mechanical methods or fire, and would treat only about 31,750 acres. The focus of the treatments under all three action alternatives would be to restore riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats; slow singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper encroachment into and infilling within these habitats; and thin historic pinyon-juniper communities to promote woodland health. Under Alternative D, the No Action Alternative, no new treatments would be authorized as a result of this project. However, the BLM would continue to conduct treatments approved under earlier NEPA authorizations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed changes would (1) improve woodland, rangeland, and riparian health, productivity, and functionality; (2) increase stream flows and restore channel morphology in degraded streams; (3) improve stream habitat for fish and wildlife by implementing physical treatments that include installing large woody debris, rock clusters, and check dams, and using temporary fencing to exclude livestock and wild horses; (4) improve the health of aspen, mountain mahogany, and other mountain tree and shrub stands to benefit wildlife, and Native Americans that use these plants for medicinal and other purposes; (5) slow the expansion of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush and riparian plant communities; (6) slow the spread of noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation, including cheatgrass; and (7) protect and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife, including species of concern such as raptors, greater sage-grouse, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed vegetation treatments could kill or harm wildlife, and cause unavoidable short-term adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat use. The extent of these disturbances would vary by the extent and type of treatment. In general, greatest risks would be associated with the use of prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefits. These effects would be of special concern when they impact BLM Special Status Species, including greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, raptors, and bats. JF - EPA number: 130280, Executive Summary--28 pages, Draft EIS--735 pages, Appendices--54 pages, September 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-B2010-2011-0200-EIS KW - Conservation KW - Wilderness Management KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fires KW - Land Management KW - Vegetation KW - Natural Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Streams KW - Channels KW - Nevada UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=3+BARS+ECOSYSTEM+AND+LANDSCAPE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=3+BARS+ECOSYSTEM+AND+LANDSCAPE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STATE SOLAR SOUTH PROJECT AND PROPOSED LAS VEGAS FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2010). AN - 16394438; 15878 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 250 to 350-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar plant and associated facilities on public lands in southern Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The project site is in Primm Valley, 40 miles south of Las Vegas and two miles east of Primm. The Silver State Solar Project was previously analyzed in a final EIS issued in September 2010. Phase I of that project was authorized as the 50-MW Silver State Solar North Project and is currently operational. In early 2011, Silver State Solar Power South, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application for the Silver State Solar South Project encompassing an additional 5,610 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This area includes 5,069 additional acres immediately north of the previously analyzed 7,925-acre ROW application area and a 541-acre area immediately west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final supplemental EIS. Alternative B is the applicant's proposal and is similar to Phases II and III of the original proposed action, but the layout of solar arrays, drainage facilities and appurtenant structures, has been revised to avoid potential impacts to resources, particularly to jurisdictional waters of the United States. Project facilities inside the perimeter fence would cover 3,796 acres, including limited amounts of open space between the perimeter roads and the arrays, as well as drainage facilities. Limited development would also occur outside the perimeter fencing, with 59 acres that would include a 220 kilovolt transmission line, a switchyard, temporary construction mobilization area, perimeter roads, and 2.9 miles of maintenance roads. Alternative C represents Phases II and III of the original proposed action as analyzed in the 2010 final EIS. Drainage controls would consist of a series of up to five earthen berms that would contain surface runoff flows to existing primary drainages (stormwater flow corridors) across the site. Silver State's preferred alternative (Alternative D) is similar to Alternative B, but includes a modified layout which has been designed to avoid impacts to interstate drainages, reduce impacts to desert tortoise and other special status species, and minimize impacts to recreational areas in the Jean Lake/Roach Lake Special Recreation Management Area. The solar field and ancillary facilities would occupy 2,609 acres inside perimeter fencing and 482 acres of the facility footprint would be located outside the fenced area, including perimeter roads and 2.5 miles of maintenance roads. Drainage controls would consist of two detention basins and associated drainage channels. Alternative D also includes a proposal to designate a 40,180-acre area of critical environmental concern (ACEC). The BLM's preferred alternative incorporates site layout modifications based on ongoing discussions with resource agencies, stakeholder groups, and comments received on the draft supplemental EIS. Under this alternative, the Silver State Solar South Project would generate 250MW of power. The solar field and ancillary facilities, including internal circulation roads would occupy approximately 1,898 acres inside the perimeter fencing. About 529 acres of the facility footprint would be located outside the perimeter fencing including drainage facilities, the Primm Substation and associated infrastructure, including a 12-kilovolt (kV) distribution line from the NV Energy Bighorn Substation along the Project access road, interconnection facilities, and a maintenance road that would intersect the site. The proposed footprint remains within the area evaluated in the 2010 final EIS and incorporates a 31,859-acre ACEC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project at the proposed site would take advantage of Nevada's solar resource, allow direct interconnection with both the Nevada and California transmission systems, and help to meet federal requirements to use public lands for renewable energy development. Designation of the ACEC under Alternative D would protect vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and special status species in the designated area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grading for construction under Alternatives B, C, D, and BLM's preferred alternative would disturb 3,855 acres, 2,515 acres, 3,091 acres and 2,427 acres, respectively. Project implementation could result in localized wind-driven soil erosion. Native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species would be adversely affected. Construction would contribute to unavoidable habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Cumulative impacts of planned projects in the area would eliminate suitable desert tortoise habitat, restrict recreational activities, and alter the landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 10-0040D, Volume 34, Number 1 and 10-0290F, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 130277, 931 pages, September 20, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2012-0067-EIS KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+SOUTH+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+LAS+VEGAS+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2010%29.&rft.title=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+SOUTH+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+LAS+VEGAS+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 20, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST AND PROPOSED TRES RIOS FIELD OFFICE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16394374; 15876 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 504,400 surface acres and 704,300 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Tres Rios Field Office (TRFO) are managed under a combined partnership. The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, located within TRFO lands, is not included in this analysis because a separate management plan was approved for that area in June 2010. Four land management alternatives and oil and gas leasing alternatives are considered in this final EIS. 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. 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: 130275, Volume 1--762 pages, Volume 2, Volume 3, Records of Decision, September 20, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/16394374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+PROPOSED+TRES+RIOS+FIELD+OFFICE+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.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+PROPOSED+TRES+RIOS+FIELD+OFFICE+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.&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 - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 20, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS, BEAVER, GARFIELD, IRON, JUAB, MILLARD, PIUTE, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 1496912086; 15866 AB - PURPOSE: Leasing alternatives for oil and gas exploration and development on 1.7 million acres of federal land in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne counties, Utah are proposed. The lands are administered by the Fishlake National Forest (FNF) and include 253,299 acres that are part of the Dixie National Forest. The decision area consists mainly of north-south trending mountains and plateaus bounded by adjacent valleys and basins. Key issues 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 are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action (Alternative A), no lands would be authorized for oil and gas leasing. Under Alternative B, all lands administratively available would be authorized for lease. A controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation would apply on 827,775 acres and a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation would apply on 1,665 acres. Under Alternative C, which is the proposed action, all lands administered by the FNF would be available for lease with 62,468 acres under standard lease terms and conditions, 82,359 acres under a timing limitation (TL) stipulation, 209,120 acres under a CSU stipulation, and 1.35 million acres under a NSO stipulation. Under Alternative D, about 1.24 million acres, including all inventoried roadless areas, would not be authorized for leasing. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative C for implementation. An NSO stipulation would apply to: all research natural areas; Quitchupah Canyon cultural area; Paradise Valley cultural resource site; Old Spanish Trail corridor; areas with slopes greater than 35 percent; North Horn sediment areas greater than 25 percent slope; areas within one mile of known threatened or endangered plants; areas within one mile of sensitive plant locations covered under a conservation agreement; areas within 300 feet of riparian areas, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, perennial streams, and springs; municipal water source protection areas; bald eagle winter concentration areas; Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers; goshawk core nesting 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; and inventoried roadless areas. A TL stipulation would apply to sage grouse brood-rearing areas, sage grouse winter habitat, big game wintering areas, and big game calving and fawning areas. A CSU stipulation would apply to goshawk post-fledging areas, raptor nest areas, and Class I airsheds. 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, drilling, and development and production would create temporary noise 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, 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 (P.L. 100-203). JF - EPA number: 130265, Final EIS--640 pages, Record of Decision--24 pages, September 13, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1496912086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-13&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 - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARIN, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2011). AN - 16393483; 15862 AB - PURPOSE: A dog management plan for 22 sites within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) of California is proposed. The GGNRA encompasses 80,500 acres in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. The proposed plan would address the 20,000 acres managed by GGNRA and certain additional lands that will be directly managed by the park in the near future, namely, Pedro Point Headlands and Cattle Hill in San Mateo County. Since the 1990s, the San Francisco Bay Area population and overall use of the GGNRA park sites have increased, as have the number of private and commercial dog walkers. A dog management policy inconsistent with National Park Service (NPS) regulations and increased public expectations for use of the park for dog recreation have resulted in controversy, litigation, and compromised visitor and employee safety, affecting visitor experience and resulting in resource degradation. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would perpetuate current dog walking practices, are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative B would bring the park into alignment with the NPS-wide leash regulation which allows on-leash dog walking only. Alternative C would emphasize multiple use, and would balance use by allowing a variety of options in each county. In Marin and San Francisco counties, there would be options for on-leash areas, regulated off-leash areas (ROLAs), and areas where dogs would be prohibited. In San Mateo, options would include on-leash areas and areas where dogs would be prohibited. All dog walkers would be allowed to walk one to three dogs without a permit and would be able to obtain a permit to walk four to six dogs. Alternative D would allow options for dogs to be exercised on-leash or in ROLAs, but would provide the highest level of protection for natural and cultural resources. Dog walkers would be allowed to walk one to three dogs without a permit, but no commercial dog walking would be allowed. Alternative E would provide the greatest level of access for dog walkers throughout the GGNRA. Alternative F is the preferred alternative and would provide balanced visitor use as well as protection of natural resources, cultural resources, and visitor safety. All dog walkers, including commercial dog walkers, would be allowed to walk one to three dogs without a permit. Any dog walker, commercial or private, could obtain a permit to walk four to six dogs. In a ROLA, permit holders could have up to six dogs under voice and sight control. Permits could restrict dog walking use by time and area. Permits would only be issued for the following sites: Alta Trail, Rodeo Beach, Fort Baker, Fort Mason, Crissy Field, Baker Beach, and Fort Funston. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A clear and enforceable policy specifying the manner and extent of dog use in appropriate areas would preserve and protect resources while providing for a variety of safe, high-quality visitor use experiences and minimizing conflicts related to dog use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils and coastal community vegetation would be variably affected at different sites through trampling and erosion. Long-term minor to moderate impacts would continue at some areas for coastal scrub, chaparral, and grassland wildlife and riparian forest and stream corridor wildlife. Eleven state and/or federally listed plant species and 12 listed wildlife species, including western snowy plover, are currently identified within GGNRA. Impacts to cultural resources would range from negligible to minor. New regulations would have a minor to moderate effect on visitors who prefer to walk dogs in the park. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130261, Draft Supplemental EIS--1,633 pages, Appendices--272 pages, September 6, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+DOG+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2011%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+DOG+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARIN%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+AND+SAN+MATEO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2011%29.&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 - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 6, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 16381342; 15858 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includes all of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties. Intermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and lands owned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. The designation of five priority wildlife habitat areas would protect species such as greater sage-grouse and Lahontan cutthroat trout. Commodity and development-based resources such as livestock grazing and minerals production would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; designate 28,354 acres as closed, 6.9 million acres limited, and 288,105 acres open to off-highway vehicle travel; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improve fire regime condition on 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Under Alternative C Option 1, resource development would be more constrained than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Alternative C Option 2 would eliminate livestock grazing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0330D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 130257, Final EIS--1,528 pages, Appendices--420 pages, Responses to Comments--747 pages, September 6, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-W000-2010-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 6, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PURPLE LINE, MONTGOMERY AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 1496912080; 15860 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16.2-mile rapid transit line, to be known as the Purple Line, extending from Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George's County, Maryland are proposed. The Purple Line would be located north and northeast of Washington, DC along a corridor which includes five major activity centers: Bethesda, Silver Spring, Takoma/Langley Park, College Park, and New Carrollton. The corridor currently suffers from increasing congestion on the roadway system; slow and unreliable transit travel times due to the congested roadway system; limited travel mode options; degraded mobility and accessibility between activity centers, employment hubs, and residential areas; and degraded transit accessibility to the larger metropolitan area due to inferior connections to radial Metrorail lines and to other rail and bus services. This final EIS assesses the preferred Purple Line Alternative and a No Build Alternative. The preferred alternative transitway would operate mainly in exclusive or dedicated lanes along existing roadways and would be at grade except for one short tunnel section (a 0.3-mile tunnel between Wayne Avenue and Arliss Street) and three sections elevated on structures. Seventeen stations would be at street level, three would be on aerial structures, and one would be in the tunnel portal. Passengers would access the Purple Line by walking, bicycling, transferring from other transit lines, or from existing parking facilities. The preferred alternative would include constructing the permanent Capital Crescent Trail from Bethesda to Silver Spring. System infrastructure would include an overhead contact system for electric power and 18 substations. The average daily ridership in 2040 is anticipated to be more than 74,000. The estimated capital cost for the Purple Line is $2.2 billion in year of expenditure dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Purple Line would provide improved east-west transit service connecting major activity centers. Better connections to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail stations in the corridor would benefit communities located between the Metrorail lines. The Purple Line also would provide direct transit connections to other transit services including MARC commuter rail, Amtrak, and local bus routes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in 60 commercial, 53 residential, and three institutional displacements. Partial land acquisitions would impact forest edge and stream habitat. Roadway widening and culvert extensions would result in minor wetland and floodplain impacts. The preferred alternative would use parts of 14 publicly-owned parks or historic properties, however nine of these uses would be relatively minor. Three historic properties (Talbot Avenue Bridge, Metropolitan Branch, and Falkland Apartments) would be adversely affected. Visual character would change along the Georgetown Branch right-of-way, along Wayne Avenue, and as a result of the aerial structure and Riverdale Park Station across the intersection of Kenilworth Avenue and Riverdale Road. Operation would cause moderate noise and vibration impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0453D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 130259, Final EIS--903 pages, Engineering Plans--541 pages, Technical Reports--2,843 pages, Public Comments--6,173 pages, September 6, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1496912080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-09-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PURPLE+LINE%2C+MONTGOMERY+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=PURPLE+LINE%2C+MONTGOMERY+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 6, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER SAGE-GROUSE BI-STATE DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT, HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, ALPINE AND MONO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA; AND DOUGLAS, ESMERALDA, LYON, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 16391458; 15847 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carson City and Battle Mountain District resource management plans to conserve, enhance, and/or restore habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the greater sage-grouse Bi-state distinct population segment (DPS) in Nevada and California is proposed. The Bi-State DPS includes sage-grouse that occur in portions of Carson City, Lyon, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Douglas counties in Nevada. It also includes sage-grouse in portions of Alpine, Inyo, and Mono counties in California. The study area encompasses over five million acres of federal and private land. The area affected by the proposed action includes 648,800 acres of mapped habitat on National Forest Service (NFS) and BLM-administrated lands. Major threats identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with regard to actions authorized on public lands within the amendment area are habitat modification, including modification from infrastructure (fences, powerlines, and roads), recreation, mining, energy development, grazing, fire, invasive species, noxious weeds, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and climate change. The proposed management direction would include setting aside areas around sage grouse leks to reduce impacts during its critical use seasons, using vegetation treatment actions designed to improve the sagebrush ecosystems needed by the sage grouse during all parts of their annual cycle, and identifying guidelines for minerals management and other permitted activities to reduce impacts to the sage grouse and its habitat. For the proposed amendment, Bi-state sage grouse priority habitat refers to all seasonal and year-round Bi-state DPS habitat plus all land within 3.1 miles of active leks. Buffers, timing limitations, or offsite habitat restoration would be applied to all new or renewed discretionary actions in Bi-state-sage grouse habitat to mitigate potential long-term negative impacts. Grazing permits would include terms, conditions, and direction to move toward or maintain Bi-state sage grouse habitat desired conditions. Pesticide use would be allowed only outside of the critical disturbance periods and only after other integrated pest management approaches have been considered. The Forest Land Acquisition Plan would include all private parcels that include Bi-state sage grouse habitat within the NFS boundaries and unused rights-of-way would be relinquished and reclaimed. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the recent "warranted, but precluded" Endangered Species Act finding from the USFWS by implementing changes in the management and conservation of the Bi-state DPS habitats within the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed standards may result in additional costs for energy and mining projects as well as changes to the permitted seasons of livestock use, grazing, and location of watering and handling facilities. In addition, six herd management areas/wild horse and burro territories could be impacted by new timing limitations and the need to minimize disturbance of habitat. Changes in recreation settings and opportunities are expected to be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130246, 141 pages, August 23, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest KW - Nevada 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/16391458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-08-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+BI-STATE+DISTINCT+POPULATION+SEGMENT+FOREST+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALPINE+AND+MONO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%3B+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+ESMERALDA%2C+LYON%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+BI-STATE+DISTINCT+POPULATION+SEGMENT+FOREST+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALPINE+AND+MONO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%3B+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+ESMERALDA%2C+LYON%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sparks, Nevada; DA N1 - Date revised - 2013-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 23, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-12-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST COLORADO GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. AN - 16394254; 15840 AB - PURPOSE: A land use plan amendment that would add greater sage-grouse conservation measures to existing resource management plans (RMPs) and a forest plan in northwest Colorado is proposed. This draft amendment/draft EIS is one of 15 separate planning efforts that are being undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service as part of their National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The planning area for northwest Colorado is part of the larger Rocky Mountain Region and encompasses 15 million acres, including 8.5 million acres of public lands managed by five BLM field offices (Colorado River Valley, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Little Snake, and White River) and the Routt National Forest in the 10 counties of Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. Changes in management of greater sage-grouse habitats are needed to avoid the continued decline of populations that are anticipated across the species range. Habitat has been mapped preliminarily into three categories: 1) preliminary priority habitat (PPH), or areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value, including breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas; 2) preliminary general habitat (PGH) representing areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat; and 3) linkage/connectivity habitat, or areas important to the movement of greater sage-grouse. PPH and PGH are considered preliminary until a decision on this document is made, at which point they would become priority habitat and general habitat. Four alternatives for managing 1.7 million acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands and 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered subsurface federal mineral estate that may lie beneath other surface ownership are considered. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), goals and objectives for resources and resource uses based on the most recent RMP decisions would remain the same. Appropriate and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to mineral leasing and development, recreation, construction of utility corridors, and livestock grazing would also remain the same. Under Alternative B, conservation measures taken from the Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) report would include a three-percent disturbance cap in PPH. Alternative C, which includes conservation measures submitted by conservation groups, would designate 910,000 acres as a sage-grouse habitat area of critical environmental concern (ACEC). The ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, designated as a right-of-way (ROW) exclusion area, and closed to livestock grazing. Vegetation treatments would be allowed only for the benefit of greater sage-grouse and the area would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Alternative D, which is the agencies' preferred alternative, would emphasize balancing resources and resource use among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape. This alternative incorporates adjustments to the NTT report to provide a balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources. Anthropogenic surface disturbance would be managed not to exceed five percent in ecological sites that support sagebrush within PPH. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Conservation measures and changes in habitat management are anticipated to have a considerable impact on greater sage-grouse populations and could prevent the species from being listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Other terrestrial wildlife associated with greater sage-grouse habitat would also benefit. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral leasing and development, recreation, construction and operation of ROW facilities, and livestock grazing may result in continued habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Restrictions on road construction and the three percent or five percent disturbance caps could make small oil and gas development projects economically nonviable. Greater restrictions would also result in reduced efficiency and increased cost of developing locatable and salable mineral resources. The number and miles of roads or trails available for recreational use would decline under all of the action alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130239, Draft EIS--1,099 pages, Appendices--541, August 16, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CO/PL-13/008 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Routt 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/16394254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+COLORADO+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+COLORADO+GREATER+SAGE-GROUSE+LAND+USE+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 16, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO SOL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16394162; 15823 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of an up to 20-megawatt solar photovoltaic facility on 100 acres of public lands adjacent to the existing Imperial Valley Substation in Imperial County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Ocotillo Sol solar energy project which would be sited 82 miles east of San Diego, nine miles southwest of El Centro, five miles south of Seeley, and five miles north of the United States-Mexico border. The project site lies within the Imperial South California renewable energy zone and within the BLMs Yuha Basin area of critical environmental concern. Authorization of the project would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan of 1980. Project components would include photovoltaic modules and mounting structures, a maintenance building with an associated parking area, internal roads, inverters, transformers, and combining switchgear. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under SDG&E's proposed project (Alternative 2), the BLM would amend the CDCA Plan to identify 115 acres as suitable for solar energy development and allow solar development on this land. A 15-acre temporary ROW would be used as a laydown area during construction of the solar facility. A 12.47-kilovolt, 2,000-foot underground generation tie line would connect the generation facility to the adjacent Imperial Valley Substation. Alternative 3, which is the BLM's preferred alternative, is the same as the proposed project except that the size of the construction laydown area would be reduced to two acres thereby necessitating the management of laydown and staging within the 100-acre Ocotillo Sol site. The two-acre temporary laydown area would be used for construction workforce parking. Alternatives 4 and 5 are No Project alternatives which would amend the CDCA Plan to identify the project area as suitable or unsuitable for solar energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the ROW grant would allow SDG&E to develop, own, and operate a renewable energy generation facility in the Imperial Valley. Proximity to transmission facilities with sufficient capacity would provide for delivery of the renewable energy generated by the project to SDG&E's customers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in 102 acres of ground disturbance, risk of proliferation of non-native weed species, and impacts to vegetation resources including a creosote bush and white burr sage scrub sensitive natural community. With implementation of mitigation and conservation measures, the impacts to flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl, raptor species, migratory birds, and special status small mammals and reptiles would not contribute to cumulatively adverse impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130222, Final EIS--505 pages, Appendices--437 pages, July 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+SOL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+SOL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR ELECTRICAL GENERATING SYSTEM, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2011). AN - 16393315; 15822 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Palen Solar Electric Generating System (PSEGS) on 3,896 acres of public land in Riverside County, California is proposed. The project site is located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The original project proponent filed a right-of-way (ROW) application in 2008 for a concentrating solar project that would use solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity (Palen Solar Power Project or PSPP). The PSPP application was analyzed through a proposed California Desert Conservation Area Plan amendment and final EIS which was issued in May 2011. Prior to finalizing the Record of Decision, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was informed that the PSPP would not likely be constructed as described. BrightSource Energy, Inc. acquired all rights to the project and created a new project company, Palen Solar Holdings, LLC, which would develop the 500-megawatt energy plant using concentrating solar thermal power tower technology. This draft supplemental EIS analyzes the new applicants proposed technology change and the environmental implications. Key differences from the action alternatives described and analyzed in the PSPP final EIS include: the PSEGSs two proposed 750-foot power towers, each topped by a 10-foot tall lightning rod and Federal Aviation Administration-required lighting, and surrounded by 85,000 heliostat assemblies (a total of 170,000 heliostats are proposed); a shift in the westernmost portion of the previously analyzed seven-mile 230-kilovolt generation tie (gen-tie) line to accommodate the relocation of the Red Bluff Substation and to align the transmission corridors of the PSEGS with the Desert Sunlight Project; installation of a new redundant telecommunications cable beneath the gen-tie line access road that would extend the length of the gen-tie line; and the upgrade and extension of an eight-inch natural gas supply pipeline for a distance of 2,960 linear feet from a new tap station on the main transmission line to the PSEGS site. Other key differences between the PSEGS and the action alternatives described and analyzed for the PSPP include a reduction in the number of proposed evaporation ponds from four to two, reduction in water use over the life of the project by approximately 99 acre-feet per year, and reduction in the amount of grading required within the solar plant site. In addition to evaluating the proposed project, the BLM is carrying forward the agency preferred alternative identified in the PSPP final EIS (Reconfigured Alternative 2) and a No Action Alternative for analysis in this draft supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy. Project construction would employ 998 daily workers on average and 2,311 workers at peak. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 3,386 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, 187 acres of partially stabilized dunes, 375 acres of ephemeral washes, and 206 acres of desert dry wash woodlands. The project would impact nearly 3,950 acres of habitat for native wildlife including habitat for desert tortoise, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, golden eagle, American badger, burrowing owl, other special status and migratory birds, and kit fox. Construction, operation or maintenance activities could result in some death, harm, harassment, removal, or capture of wildlife. Other adverse effects would include disturbance of cultural and paleontological resources, emissions of ozone and particulate matter, depletion of groundwater, and visual impacts for travelers along I-10 and dispersed recreational users in the McCoy, Big Maria, and Little Maria Mountains and wilderness. 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 10-0030D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 130221, Draft Supplemental EIS--422 pages, Appendices--1,953 pages, July 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2013/023+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Water KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert 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/16393315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+ELECTRICAL+GENERATING+SYSTEM%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2011%29.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+ELECTRICAL+GENERATING+SYSTEM%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2011%29.&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 - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ANTIETAM NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, AND MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK DRAFT WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. AN - 16391286; 15818 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of white-tailed deer at Antietam National Battlefield, Monocacy National Battlefield, and Manassas National Battlefield Park in Maryland and Virginia are proposed. Action is needed at this time because the sizes of deer herds and deer population density have increased substantially over the years at all three battlefields. Deer browsing has resulted in damage to crops and associated vegetation that are key components of the cultural landscapes of the battlefields. In addition, chronic wasting disease (CWD) is proximate to the parks and represents an imminent threat to resources in the parks. Four alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (No Action), the existing deer management plan of monitoring, data management, research, and use of protective caging and repellents in landscaped areas would continue; no new deer management actions would be taken. All parks would continue with opportunistic and targeted surveillance for CWD. Under Alternative B, the main focus of deer management would be the use of a combination of nonlethal actions including the construction of large-scale deer exclosures (fencing) for the purposes of forest regeneration and the use of nonsurgical reproductive control of does to restrict population growth, using an agent that meets established criteria. Alternative B would also include techniques such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning to prevent adverse deer impacts. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting, with a very limited use of capture and euthanasia of individual deer if needed in those few circumstances where sharpshooting would not be considered appropriate due to safety concerns. Plans for achieving desired deer density would involve the removal of a total of 550 deer at Antietam, 659 deer at Monocacy, and 1,635 deer at Manassas over four to five years. Alternative D would combine elements from Alternatives B and C: sharpshooting and very limited capture/euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control methods if these are available and feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. Alternative D would also include techniques such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning. All of the action alternatives include a CWD management plan that provides for a longer-term response to CWD when it is in or within five miles of the parks. The plan includes lethal removal of deer to substantially reduce deer density, because high population densities generally support greater rates of disease transmission and have been found to be positively correlated with the prevalence of CWD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Effective management would help preserve and restore important cultural landscapes and agricultural viability within the battlefield grounds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: For Alternatives A and B, reducing deer herd numbers based solely on reproductive control would take a substantial amount of time and adverse impacts on vegetation, the white-tailed deer population, other wildlife and wildlife habitat would continue. For Alternatives C and D, implementation of sharpshooting or capture and euthanasia at the parks may disturb some visitors. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130217, 456 pages, July 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Antietam National Battlefield KW - Manassas National Battlefield Park KW - Maryland KW - Monocacy National Battlefield KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANTIETAM+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+AND+MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+DRAFT+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARYLAND+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ANTIETAM+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+AND+MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+DRAFT+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARYLAND+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sharpsburg, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381199; 15826 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats along the exposed shoreline of the Salton Sea that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is a terminal lake that was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has become a critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, but critical habitat is being lost due to increased salinity and declining water surface elevation. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the SCH project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites under consideration for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include the Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative of the California Natural Resources Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SCH Project would employ an adaptive management framework and serve as a proof of concept for the restoration of shallow water habitat. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species that are dependent on shallow saline habitat such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates which would impact minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause loss of riparian areas and habitat for desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130225, 750 pages, July 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WILDERNESS STUDY, CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 1449263675; 15820 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management and use of Fort Pulaski National Monument, Chatham County, Georgia are proposed. The monument is located between Savannah and Tybee Island on the Georgia coast and encompasses 5,365 acres on Cockspur and McQueens islands. The proposed general management plan (GMP) would provide direction over the next 20 years or more. Fort Pulaski is a well-preserved, massive, brick fortification considered invincible when it was built in the first half of the 19th century. It was one unit in a protective chain of forts planned and built to protect the eastern seaboard cities after the British burned the City of Washington during the War of 1812. The bombardment of Fort Pulaski by rifled cannons during the Civil War resulted in the breach of its walls and the surrender of its garrison to Union forces. Other historic resources include the John Wesley Harding Memorial; dikes, ditches, and tidal gates built under the direction of Lt. Robert E. Lee; the Cockspur Island Lighthouse; the remains of the construction village used by workers who built Fort Pulaski; Civil War era mortar batteries; gun emplacements; and Battery Hambright, a Spanish-American War era gun emplacement. Key management issues include interpretive themes, potential expansion of the monument, potential impacts on the monument's resources from the proposed widening of U.S. Highway 80, and protection of water quality and biodiversity in the salt marsh ecosystem. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, Fort Pulaski would be managed to focus on the April 1862 period of significance in terms of the landscape and interpretive programs. This alternative would include landscape restoration and interpretation of the construction village. Selected vegetation would be removed to facilitate understanding of Fort Pulaskis field of fire as a defensive coastal fort and to better understand the sight lines during the historic Civil War battle. Under Alternative C, the national monument would be managed with a much broader interpretive mandate to include a wider range of themes and historic periods as well as natural resource themes. Under both action alternatives, 4,500 acres of salt marsh in the McQueens Island portion of the monument would be recommended for wilderness designation. The National Park Service (NPS) will manage these lands to preserve wilderness character until such time as the U.S. Congress takes action to include or exclude them from the National Wilderness Preservation System. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An up-to-date GMP would address how visitors access and use the monument, the facilities needed to support those uses, resource management, and NPS operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance could increase the spread of nonnative plants. Loss of vegetative cover could increase siltation in adjacent waterways and would remove wildlife habitat. The proposed relocation of a parking area would adversely impact the Mission 66 visitor center, an historic structure. A new visitor parking area would be sited in an area of former wetlands, but impacts would be avoided. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130219, 256 pages, July 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fort Pulaski National Monument KW - Georgia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance 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/1449263675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+PULASKI+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=FORT+PULASKI+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN VALLEY PARKWAY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16394119; 15810 AB - PURPOSE: A right-of-way (ROW) grant for the purpose of constructing a two- to six-lane parkway from Goodyear to Mobile in Rainbow Valley, Maricopa County, Arizona is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lower Sonoran Field Office received an application from the City of Goodyear for a 250-foot ROW to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed 15- to 18-mile Sonoran Valley Parkway to connect residents of the annexed lands of Goodyears Sonoran Valley Planning Area (SVPA) near the community of Mobile for fire, police, and emergency services. The parkway would originate at the intersection of Rainbow Valley Road and Riggs Road at the southern end of Goodyear and extend southwest to intersect with State Route (SR) 238 at a point just west of the community of Mobile. The majority of the proposed parkway would be located on BLM lands; the remainder would occur on private and Arizona State Land Department lands. In addition to a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives and two sub-alternatives. Alternative A is the proposed route which would extend 15.7 miles within an existing El Paso Natural Gas utility corridor, generally bordering and running parallel to the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM). Alternative C would be 18.1 miles in length, beginning at Riggs Road at the north end, turning a southerly direction for 1.8 miles along Rainbow Valley Road. The route would proceed directly east along Patterson Road for four miles. The next section would proceed south along the Bullard Avenue alignment for three miles, and finally head east and southeast for 5.4 miles. Alternative H would be 18.3 miles in length, beginning at Riggs Road at the north end, then would travel south along Rainbow Valley Road for 1.9 miles to Patterson Road. Alternative H would then turn east and follow Patterson Road for 5.5 miles to the Dysart Avenue alignment, where the alignment would turn due south and then follow the SDNM boundary, terminating at SR 238. Sub-alternative F and Sub-alternative G were developed to avoid a historic homestead site and apply to the southern terminus alignment only. The proposed parkway would be built in three phases of two lanes each based on current and future growth in the area. The 250-foot ROW is the same for each alternative and includes 25-foot-wide drainage easements on both sides. The design speed is 65 miles per hour and the posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. The BLM has identified Alternative A with Sub-alternative G as the preferred alternative route for the Sonoran Valley Parkway, including best management practices and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The addition of a continuous, non-fragmented route would facilitate mobility for residents in the newly annexed SVPA and phased construction would accommodate projected future population growth. It is anticipated the Sonoran Valley Parkway, if constructed, would provide the BLM with improved management tools by enhancing opportunities to control vehicle entry into the SDNM from innumerable, unplanned primitive roads and wash vehicle route networks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: An expanded transportation system may increase residential development and exacerbate air quality problems. Under the preferred alternative, ROW requirements would result in disturbance of more than 470 acres of soils and vegetation. The project footprint would impact washes and floodplains; however design features would preserve the form and function of the floodplain. Construction and operation would result in a moderate, long-term impact to wildlife species through decreased connectivity, habitat fragmentation, and individual mortality. Two designated wildlife movement corridors and habitat for the Sonoran Desert tortoise and the Tucson shovel-nosed snake are present within the project area. All action alternatives would adversely impact the Butterfield Overland Stage Route and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. The characteristics of the landscape would shift slightly due to the introduction of a paved parkway into a generally vacant landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130209, 584 pages, July 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-AZ-P020-2011-013-EIS KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+VALLEY+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SONORAN+VALLEY+PARKWAY+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 - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APS SUN VALLEY TO MORGAN 500/230KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT AND PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16381153; 15813 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a 500/230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line in northern Maricopa County, Arizona are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Hassayampa Field Office has received a right-of-way (ROW) application from Arizona Public Service (APS) for the Sun Valley to Morgan Transmission Line Project which would be located on a combination of BLM-managed public lands, Arizona State Trust lands, and private lands northwest of Phoenix. The proposed transmission line would be built on monopole structures and would cross 10.5 miles of federal public lands in two separate locations. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, three alternative routes, one sub-alternative route, and a No Action Alternative. Under the proposed action, the transmission line would extend 38 miles from the Sun Valley Substation, in the northwest portion of the Town of Buckeye, generally northeast to the Morgan Substation in the City of Peoria. The proposed route would cross and parallel State Route (SR) 74 to the north on BLM-managed public land for five miles before crossing to the south side of SR 74 and continuing on to the Morgan Substation. Under Alternative 1, the transmission line route would be the same as the proposed route; however, a multi-use utility corridor would be established on BLM lands that begin at the centerline of SR 74 and extend 0.5-mile north, and also include the entire key-shaped block of BLM lands south of SR 74. Under Alternative 2, a five-mile long segment that parallels the south side of SR 74 on private land would replace a five-mile long segment of the proposed route north of SR 74 on public lands. The Alternative 3 route would replace a nine-mile long segment of the proposed route north of SR 74 by using the Carefree Highway alignment. The sub-alternative route would replace a four-mile section of the proposed route that would also be common to all action alternatives. The sub-alternative route would parallel the north side of the Cloud Road alignment, east for three miles to the intersection with 211th Avenue, then parallel the west side of 211th Avenue for one mile north, where it would rejoin the portion of the proposed route that is common to all action alternatives. The BLM has identified the proposed action route crossing public lands managed by the BLM as the agency-preferred alternative (APA). Under the APA, the BLM would approve a 200-foot ROW within the existing designated utility corridor northeast of the Sun Valley Substation. In addition, the BLM would amend the Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan to: 1) designate a single-use 200-foot utility corridor on BLM-managed lands north of SR 74; 2) designate a multiuse utility corridor within the key-shaped piece of BLM-managed lands south of SR 74 to address potential future BLM management considerations; and 3) change the existing visual resource management class designations of 2,362 acres north of SR 74 and 1,013 acres south of SR 74 from Class III to Class IV to allow for the newly established utility corridors. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The 500-kV transmission line would increase the reliability of the electrical infrastructure in Arizona and would facilitate the delivery of electricity from projected renewable energy projects to electric load centers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The co-located 230-kV transmission line would serve future load that is expected to develop in currently undeveloped areas in the Town of Buckeye, City of Surprise, City of Peoria, and unincorporated Maricopa County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of desert scrub would result in loss of habitat for wildlife and special status species. Large numbers of individual saguaro, teddybear cholla, straw-topped cholla, tree cholla, Engelmanns hedgehog cactus, California barrel cactus, ocotillo, and yellow-spine prickly pear would likely be removed. Hohokam agave, a sensitive species that has shown declines, would be adversely affected at the population scale by a loss of individuals. Desert tortoise habitat could be disturbed, but would be compensated. Three historic sites, four prehistoric sites, and two multi-component sites within the proposed route would be avoided where possible. Ten special recreation permits could be affected by the construction and/or presence of the transmission line, and views from SR 74 and the Castle Hot Springs Special Recreation Management would be impacted. Potential adverse aesthetic and economic impacts could be disproportionately high to environmental justice minority populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130212, 787 pages, July 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APS+SUN+VALLEY+TO+MORGAN+500%2F230KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=APS+SUN+VALLEY+TO+MORGAN+500%2F230KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT+AND+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUNDING ROCKETS PROGRAM AT POKER FLAT RESEARCH RANGE, ALASKA. AN - 16392420; 15805 AB - PURPOSE: The continuation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Sounding Rockets Program (SRP) at Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR), outside of Fairbanks, Alaska is assessed. Owned and operated by the University of Alaska Fairbanks since 1968, the PFRR is a launch facility for sounding rockets, which carry scientific instruments into regions of the upper atmosphere and space. The primary types of missions conducted by NASA at PFRR are in partnership with university scientists who study the earth's atmosphere and its interaction with the space environment. The PFRR is located northeast of the unincorporated village of Chatanika, Alaska and consists of 5,200 acres of land that house rocket and support facilities, launch pads, and tracking infrastructure. Directly north of the PFRR facility are its downrange flight zones, over which rockets are launched and within which spent stages and payloads impact the ground. Within these flight zones are Steese National Conservation Area and White Mountain National Recreational Area, and the Arctic and Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuges. Historically, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service have issued special-use authorizations and agreements for impact of rockets and recovery operations on these lands. This final EIS tiers from the programmatic 2000 SRP final supplemental EIS and considers five alternatives for continued operations at PFRR. Under the No Action Alternative, the SRP would continue in its present form and no significant efforts would be taken to recover spent stages unless desired for programmatic reasons. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative and would include enhanced efforts to locate new and existing spent stages and payloads within the PFRR flight corridor. Some items or parts thereof could be left in the field if the landowners agree that attempted recovery could cause more damage to the environment than leaving it in place. Under Alternative 2, maximum practicable effort would be exerted to fully recover newly expended and existing spent stages and payloads if it is determined that they can be recovered safely, even if the efforts result in longer-term recovery-related environmental impacts. Under Alternative 3, the trajectories of future sounding rocket missions would be restricted such that planned impacts would not occur within designated Wild and Scenic River corridors. The restriction would be an extension of the existing prohibition on planned impacts within the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. Alternative 4 would include maximum cleanup search and recovery as well as the restrictions on flight trajectories. Under all alternatives, the anticipated launch schedule at PFRR would remain an average of four launches annually. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mitigation measures and recovery of spent stages and payloads would protect sensitive environments while NASA continues to obtain the scientific data afforded by high-latitude sounding rocket launches in support of its science and educational missions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Routine operations would continue to have minor adverse impacts with respect to air quality and noise. Launch operations would require the use of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials, some of which would land within downrange properties. Under the preferred alternative, additional efforts to recover flight hardware could result in isolated soil disturbances; however, all recovery efforts would be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner. Any adverse impacts from launch operations on wildlife would be local, short-term, and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (P.L. 94-233). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the programmatic final supplemental EIS on the NASA Sounding Rockets Program, see 00-0207F, Volume 24, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 130204, Final EIS--578 pages, Appendices--380 pages, July 12, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Research and Development KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Preserves KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Soils KW - Spacecraft KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge KW - Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUNDING+ROCKETS+PROGRAM+AT+POKER+FLAT+RESEARCH+RANGE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUNDING+ROCKETS+PROGRAM+AT+POKER+FLAT+RESEARCH+RANGE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Sounding Rockets Program Office, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIGHORN BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION PROJECT, BIG HORN, HOT SPRINGS, PARK, AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2011). AN - 16391635; 15800 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives which would designate greater sage-grouse priority habitat as areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) as part of the planning and management of public lands and resources within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming are considered. The draft EIS for the Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan (RMP) issued in April 2011 considered four alternatives for the management of 3.2 million acres of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cody and Worland Field Offices. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue current management under the existing Cody, Washakie, and Grass Greek RMPs. Alternative B would emphasize more protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Under Alternative D, which was the preferred alternative in the draft EIS, conservation of physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources would generally increase compared to current management. This draft supplemental EIS incorporates Alternative E and Alternative F into the planning process. Management prescriptions under Alternative E are the same as under Alternative B, except that key habitat areas for greater sage-grouse would be designated as a 1.4-million-acre ACEC. Roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, and other disturbances would be managed so that they do not exceed one per 640 acres and cover less than three percent of the total Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. In addition, beneficial reclamation and rehabilitation activities would be required to prioritize reestablishment of native vegetation in sagebrush steppe communities. Alternative F incorporates the management actions from Alternative D and would also designate core habitat areas for greater sage-grouse as an ACEC (1.4 million acres). A no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation would be applied around greater sage-grouse leks within the ACEC. Additional restrictions would be applicable where oil and gas management areas and livestock grazing overlap the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Management would prescribe no more than one disturbance per 640 acres in core sage-grouse habitat. Alternatives E and F were developed specifically to allow the analysis of potential management based on the recommendations from new data sources, such as the Greater Sage-grouse National Technical Team Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives E and F would address the need to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and habitat on BLM-administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long-term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation would impact soil resources, vegetation, air quality, and paleontological resources. Surface disturbance would contribute to the cumulative loss of sage-grouse habitat. Adverse impacts to cave and karst areas would result from management that increases incompatible or excessive recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130199, 412 pages, July 12, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/024+1610 KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2011%29.&rft.title=BIGHORN+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+PARK%2C+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 58 (SR-58) HINKLEY EXPRESSWAY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16390110; 15806 AB - PURPOSE: The widening of State Route 58 (SR 58) from a two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway near the unincorporated community of Hinkley within the Mojave Desert region of San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The project area begins 2.8 miles west of Hidden River Road and extends 8.9 miles to a point 0.7 miles east of Lenwood Road. The existing stretch of highway is experiencing traffic congestion and delays due to increasing truck traffic and limited passing opportunities. The sections of highway east and west of the project limit are four-lanes and this transition is the main cause of the bottleneck. The Hinkley Expressway would include 12-foot standard travel way lanes, 10-foot standard shoulder widths, a 78-foot-wide median and two interchanges (Hinkley Road and Lenwood Road). All entrance ramps would have two lanes at the local road and would transition to a single lane prior to merging onto the expressway. All exit ramps would have three-way stops at the exit ramp intersections with the local road. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would follow a new southerly alignment that diverges from the existing alignment two miles west of Valley View Road in a southeasterly direction to Valley View Road just south of Frontier Road, and continues along a gentle curve easterly from Valley View Road until rejoining the existing alignment at a point 0.75 miles east of Lenwood Road. The alignment would run approximately 0.5 mile south of the existing SR 58 alignment. Under Alternative 3, a new facility would run along the existing SR 58 alignment before diverging to the southeast just west of Mountain View Road for three miles. At the easterly end of the project limits, the alignment would be adjusted to avoid encroachment on the BNSF railroad. Under Alternative 4, the realignment and widening of SR 58 would occur slightly north of the existing SR 58. The new alignment would diverge from the existing alignment about 0.75 miles east of Frontier Road, running parallel to and approximately 0.5 miles north of the existing SR 58 alignment, and would converge with existing SR 58 at a point 0.75 miles east of Lenwood Road. The estimated cost of constructing the preferred alternative is $174.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed Hinkley Expressway would correct an existing bottleneck, improve safety features, provide continuity with existing four-lane sections, and meet future traffic demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would disturb 742 acres of soil, remove 549.8 acres of vegetation, displace 61 acres of farmland, and increase the amount of impervious surface area by 107 acres. A total of 740.8 acres of wildlife habitat would be impacted, including 502.3 acres of habitat for desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. Mitigation for loss of habitat for threatened species would be at a 5:1 ratio for impacts west of Hinkley Road and at a 3:1 ratio for impacts east of Hinkley Road. The alignment would cross areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources and one property determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted. Twenty-eight full and 65 partial acquisitions would displace 16 residential units and two businesses. Twenty representative receivers would experience substantial noise increases and the addition of a major facility to a rural landscape would impact community cohesion and character. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 130205, 894 pages, July 12, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Desert Land KW - Farmlands KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert 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/16390110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+58+%28SR-58%29+HINKLEY+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+58+%28SR-58%29+HINKLEY+EXPRESSWAY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN LUIS RESERVOIR STATE RECREATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN/GENERAL PLAN, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16393268; 15788 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP)/General Plan (GP) to set forth goals and guidelines for management of the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area (SRA) and adjacent lands in Merced County, California is proposed. The plan area consists of two geographically separate areas totaling over 27,000 acres in the vicinity of Los Banos, California and includes the water surfaces of San Luis Reservoir, ONeill Forebay, Los Banos Creek Reservoir and adjacent recreation lands. San Luis Reservoir consists of about 12,700 water surface acres and 65 miles of shoreline; ONeill Forebay, 2,210 water surface acres and 14 miles of shoreline; and Los Banos Creek Reservoir, approximately 485 water surface acres and 12 miles of shoreline. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (also known as California State Parks), California Department of Water Resources, and California Department of Fish and Game manage the plan area lands, which are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The SRA and wildlife areas within the plan area receive thousands of visitors each year who participate in a variety of land- and water-based recreational activities, including hiking, biking, nature study, picnicking, windsurfing, fishing, boating, personal watercraft use, and camping. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would provide for limited new visitor access and development of recreation facilities. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would balance the need for future visitor facilities with resource management by including moderate new access and development. Physical additions and visitor use modifications would be concentrated in and around existing developed areas. Alternative 4, the maximum new access and development alternative, would provide for the most physical additions and visitor use modifications among the action alternatives, some in areas that are currently undeveloped. Under the preferred alternative, a multi-use trail for hiking, cycling, and equestrian use would be developed to link the Basalt Use Area with Pacheco State Park. Existing tent/recreational vehicle (RV) sites would be reconfigured and 30 RV campsites with full hookups would be added. Trails would be developed to link the Dinosaur Point Use Area to Pacheco State Park and the San Luis Wildlife Area. The San Luis Creek Use Area and the Medeiros Use Area would also be enhanced. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP/GP would provide coordinated direction for recreation and resource management of the plan area lands for the next 25 years while continuing to serve the primary purpose of water storage and distribution and power generation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facility development would result in erosion, siltation, turbidity, pollutant release, additional runoff, and loss of or disturbance to trees, sensitive habitat, or special-status species. Resource management, including prescribed burns, could disturb plant or wildlife species. Ground-disturbing activities would expose or disturb cultural resources. All major adverse impacts would be reduced to minor levels after mitigation. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 130187, 585 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+LUIS+RESERVOIR+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2FGENERAL+PLAN%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+LUIS+RESERVOIR+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2FGENERAL+PLAN%2C+MERCED+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 - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHASTA LAKE WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION, SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16392382; 15797 AB - PURPOSE: Alternative plans emanating from the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (SLWRI) for modifying Shasta Dam and Reservoir in Shasta County, California are proposed. The 602-foot-tall dam and 4.55 million-acre-foot reservoir were constructed on the upper Sacramento River as an integral element of the Central Valley Project (CVP), with Shasta Reservoir representing about 41 percent of the total reservoir storage capacity of the CVP. The Bureau of Reclamation operates Shasta Dam and Reservoir, in conjunction with other facilities, to provide flood damage reduction and irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, maintain navigation flows, protect fish in the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), and generate hydropower. Shasta Lake supports extensive water-oriented recreation which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Sacramento River system supports four separate runs of Chinook salmon: fall-, late fall-, winter-, and spring-run. The adult populations of the four runs of salmon and other important fish species that spawn in the upper Sacramento River have declined over the last 40 years and several fish species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Water temperature, especially in dry and critical years, is a critical factor affecting the abundance of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the river. The SLWRI primary study area includes Shasta Lake and vicinity and the upper Sacramento River between Shasta Dam and the Red Bluff Pumping Plant (RBPP). The extended study area consists of the lower Sacramento River and Delta and CVP and State Water Project (SWP) facilities and water service areas. Key topics include: cultural resources in the Shasta Lake area; recreation and recreation providers in the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area; the lower McCloud River and its special designation; impacts on reservoir area property owners; terrestrial special-status species around Shasta Lake; fishery and riparian habitat resources along the upper Sacramento River; aquatic special-status species in the Sacramento River and Delta (including delta smelt); Delta water quality and south Delta water levels; Central Valley hydrology below CVP and SWP facilities and resulting effects on water supplies for water contractors and other water users. In addition to a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers five comprehensive plans which include potential dam raises ranging from 6.5 to 18.5 feet and related reservoir enlargements ranging from 256,000 to 634,000 acre feet. Each of the plans include eight common management measures: 1) enlarge Shasta Lake cold-water pool to improve anadromous fish survival; 2) modify the temperature control device; 3) increase conservation storage; 4) reduce water demand; 5) modify flood operation; 6) modify hydropower facilities; 7) maintain and increase recreation opportunities; and 8) maintain or improve water quality. Comprehensive Plan 4 (CP4) and CP5 would also include features and related construction activities associated with gravel augmentation and restoring riparian, floodplain, and side channel habitat along the upper Sacramento River. Additional features and related construction activities associated with Shasta Lake shoreline enhancements and features to increase Shasta Lake recreation opportunities are included under CP5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reservoir enlargement would improve anadromous fish survival in the upper Sacramento River and increase water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes. The proposed modifications would also enhance ecosystem resources, reduce flood damage, develop additional hydropower generation capabilities, and maintain and increase recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reservoir enlargement would convert forest land to nonforest uses and result in the loss of known mineral resources, botanical resources, jurisdictional waters, general vegetation habitats, and wildlife habitat for numerous species. Shasta salamander, bald eagle, northern spotted owl, and Pacific fisher would be affected by take and loss of habitat. Traditional cultural properties would be inundated. Increased inundation would conflict with the natural and free-flowing condition of the McCloud River and could affect the river's eligibility for listing as a wild and scenic river. LEGAL MANDATES: CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-361). JF - EPA number: 130196, Draft EIS--2,670 pages, Appendices--6,571 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Protection KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Shasta Lake KW - CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act of 2004, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2013-07-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHASTA+LAKE+WATER+RESOURCES+INVESTIGATION%2C+SHASTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SHASTA+LAKE+WATER+RESOURCES+INVESTIGATION%2C+SHASTA+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 - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD - WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16390033; 15787 AB - PURPOSE: The rebuild and upgrade of a 69-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) owns and operates the 13.6-mile transmission line that originates at Windy Gap Substation, traverses the western shoreline of Lake Granby and the Arapaho National Recreation Area (ANRA), and terminates at Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard. The project area includes tracts of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, the Colorado State Land Board, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as well as private lands. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard-Windy Gap Substation Transmission Line Rebuild Project was planned in order to address anticipated electrical system deficiencies due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable, the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B1 would involve removing the existing single-circuit line and constructing 11.8 miles of 138-kV double-circuit line on the existing alignment. A new 1.3-mile alignment on the east side of Table Mountain would route the line just inside the ANRA boundary thereby avoiding possible home relocations. Alternative C1 would reroute and upgrade the transmission line by removing the existing line and constructing 12.2 miles of double-circuit line on a primarily new right-of-way (ROW). Alternative C2 is identical to Alternative C1, except for a two-mile segment east of the Windy Gap Substation where the route would either parallel the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW or use the existing transmission line ROW to the vicinity of the Willow Creek crossing. Alternative D is the preferred alternative and would involve removing the existing single-circuit 69-kV line and constructing 11.7 miles of 138-kV double-circuit line using single-pole steel structures on the existing alignment or the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW. The existing 30-foot ROW would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. Under the preferred alignment (Option 1), the transmission line would follow the Windy Gap Pipeline for the initial 2.5 mile segment immediately east of Windy Gap Substation. Both the Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard and the Windy Gap Substation would be expanded to accommodate the double-circuit transmission line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advanc